Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Michael Jackson

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by KslotteBot (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 11 October 2010 (cleaning away archive-nav, since aan template include navigation; using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10


Wacko Jacko/MJ/King of pop

I thought the MJ part deserved its place there.--Manboobies 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames should be listed as "MJ", "The Gloved One", "Jacko", "The King of Pop", but NOT "Wacko Jacko" beacuse that is incredibly offensive to the King's two billion fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) 06:13, March 28, 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of nicknames - including 'The King of Pop', which I have never heard - is not appropriate in the lead section ahead of the TOC. 'Wacko Jacko' is certainly a well known and widely used nickname in the UK, and it seems quite appropriate to list this alongside other nicknames. Noisy | Talk 11:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate to mention his most commonly known nicknames, regardless of whether his fans find it offensive or not. This is, after all, an encylopedia and not a fan site. Googling "'Wacko Jacko' 'Michael Jackson'" renders 124,000 hits. And "'The King of Pop' and 'Michael Jackson'" renders 310,000 hits, so they are both clearly notable nicknames. Comparatively, "'The Gloved One' 'Michael Jackson'" only gives 27,100 Google hits, so I'm really not sure how you can legitimately justify including "The Gloved One" and not "Wacko Jacko".lololololololololo Also, I think "2 billion fans" might be a bit of a stretch given the total world population is only around 6.5 billion. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, both prominent nicknames should be included. 'Wacko Jacko' and 'King of Pop' redirect to the Michael Jackson article anyway, so it makes sense to include them in the intro.--Count Chocula 13:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Both “MJ” and “Whacko Jacko” lack the prominence of “King of Pop”. In spite of this fact, “Wacko Jacko” is already addressed in other parts of the article. Siddhartha21 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With 124,000 Google web hits, 13,300 Google groups hits, 9 current articles on Google news, and more than 2,000 newspaper articles on Factiva, the term "Wacko Jacko" has clear notability and prominence. IMO, the only real question is whether or not it should be mentioned in the introduction. I personally agree with what the Count says above, but regardless of opinion, trying to enforce your view by edit warring and repeatedly removing it above consensus is not the way to resolve this issue. As I said to the anon earlier, fandom is not a valid reason to remove it. The decision has to be based entirely on encyclopedic merit. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the name is already used in the article cancels out the idea of justifying its use in the opening paragraph on "encyclopedic merit". Siddhartha21 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Siddhartha, but that is simply not true. The reason it is mentioned later in the article is to explain its origin. It would be entirely inappropriate to put that in the introduction. There is absolutely no reason why it cannot be mentioned in the intro and then expaned on later in the article. This is a very common writing practice. To suggest otherwise is clutching at very weak straws. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Both nicknames should be there in my opinion. If Wacko Jacko is removed from the intro so should King of Pop. Funky Monkey 21:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

KOP and WJ are nicknames of principally different class, they can not be put in the same category. Again:
1) WJ is used only by few TV and paper tabloids, while KOP is acknowledged and used from time to time by common media, as well as biggest news agencies;
2) WJ is not international, while "KOP" goes everywhere in the world -- in China, Russia, India, wherever;
3) WJ is insulting nickname, and to publish it here -- while publishing of insulting nicknames in GWBush article is not allowed -- is double standard, what is forbidded by Wikipedia principles. Make insulting nicknames appear at Bush's article first, before trying to put it in Jackson's article.
Those three points can not be disputed, so, Funky Munky, please let's not try to make it look like Your opinion is "consensus". DenisRS 23:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Denis, but all those points can, indeed, be disputed.
Regarding your statement that Wacko Jacko is not an international term. I do not live in the United States and I can assure that it is a common nickname for him in my country. The internationality of the hits that come up on website, database and article searches for the term is additional proof what you're saying is not correct.
Furthermore, the results of a Factiva search on the term shows that your claim that only a "few TV and paper tabloids, while KOP is acknowledged and used from time to time by common media, as well as biggest news agencies" is simply not correct. There are a broad range of articles from numerous countries which use the term. I'm not suggesting it is as commonly used as "The King of Pop," but what you are claiming is not borne out by the facts.
I don't know anything about the GWB nicknames, however, taking what you say on face value, that still isn't a reason for not applying encylopedic principles. It's like saying that it's okay to do something bad because somebody else did something bad. And I personally don't think that "Wacko Jacko" is that insulting. Furthermore, we are not calling him by that name. We are merely reporting the fact that it is one of his nicknames. I haven't looked at the GWB nicknames, however, I would suggest that if they were deleted, they would have been a tad more insulting than reporting that someone has a nickname containing the rather benign word "Wacko". If you think it is so offensive and insulting, I suggest you check the definition because it can simply mean "eccentric." I would have thought even Jackson's most devoted fans would agree he was, at the least, eccentric.
Your comment directed towards User:Funky Monkey is not appropriate. A Wikipedia-style consensus was previously established. It is not fair to claim that Funky Monkey is passing his/her opinion off as consensus. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If there was ever a consensus on this issue, it has dissolved for some time now. In actuality there are only a few Wiki users that are actively pushing to keep “Wacko Jacko” in the opening sentence although the same can be said about those that feel its use at this point unnecessary. Despite the fact that “Whacko Jacko” is merely a tabloid insult, plainly created for no other purpose than to be offensive, its notoriety does not measure up to the renown of “King of Pop”. Considering how there are users such as Funky Monkey (an admitted Michael Jackson critic) who are unsettled by “King of Pop” standing alone, I feel it would be a fitting compromise for both names to be removed from the intro. Siddhartha21 11:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Where have I ever admitted being a critic of Michael Jackson? Please don't assume motives on my behalf. You know nothing about me. My interest in the Michael Jackson article is to promote a balanced article and to stop repeated fans from trying to turn the wikipedia article into some sort of sanitised fan page. Please cease from making personal attacks on me. I refer you to WP:NPA. Thanks Funky Monkey 12:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging from the amount of users that have reverted your repeated removal of 'Wacko Jacko', I'd say theres alot more than a 'few' who want to see it stay in the article. I really don't see how removing both prominent nicknames will improve the article either.--Count Chocula 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Infact there apears to be only two editors wanting to remove Wacko Jacko User:Siddhartha21 and User:DenisRS both of whom are ignoring wikipedia policies on consensus. Funky Monkey 12:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I just checked all four achives and there was *no* any "consensus" on this. In the newer archives I also found few references to "consensus", which actually never was reached according to earlier archives. So please let's not try to invent "consensus" where it is not recorded.

2Sara: You probably are from few countries that are either English-speaking or deeply influenced by slang from abroad. Because, as I mentioned, by far the most of the world, including China, Russia, India, and many more countries never heard of "WJ". India hardly heard about it, even thuogh it is English-speaking country in many ways. That is because "WJ" is used by only tabloids. It can not be compared to KOP. On the matter of WJ as *insulting* nickname: please check vocabulary -- "wack" means "mentally ill", "psycho", "kook", "lunatic". And this all classified as "Derogatory Slang". And yes, there are insulting nicknames (given by media) for Bush in the same mood as "wack", and they were always got deleted from the article and called vandalism.

So the fact that "WJ" gets constantly promoted in this article is double standard. And, by the way, reference to Bush's article is not the type of "they are bad in not being committed to Wikipedia principles, so we can be bad too". Wikipedia principles tell that in the overal equal conditions the principles such as there should be no insults and double standards are *paramout*. DenisRS 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Denis, my name is Sarah, not Sara. Secondly, I linked to a definition from an online dictionary, I do not need your cribbing of various words. I do not find "wacko" an offensive word and even if it were it's not a reason to exclude. We have articles on nigger, cunt, fuck and many other words many people would find offensive. Whether or not you personally find "wacko" offensive is not a valid reason to exclude. This is an encyclopedia; we're meant to report facts. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that Jackson is often called "Wacko Jacko," therefore we need to report it. Also, your information is patently flawed because there are articles in newspapers from countries all around the world that refer to Jackson as Wacko Jacko. Including one I saw in a Chinese newspaper. And there is no need to shout at me, thanks very much. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The current incarnation of the introductory paragraph should be changed if the wish of Wikipedia is to remain unbaised. The current introductory paragraph would be better written as: "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958), is an American musician whose successful music career and controversial personal life, have lead to such monikers such as the "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko", has been at the forefront of pop culture for the last quarter-century. --Ikyork


I know for a fact this has gone to a point where it needs to go to mediation. I know for a fact during mediation it is possible to vote for and against various solutions, and I know for a fact that one of those questions should be on the prominance of Wacko Jacko in the lead.--Manboobies 02:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I said a few weeks ago that Wacko Jacko should be removed from the introduction. I think it should be mentioned further down in the article, where we can provide more context and cite a source. Obviously many people object to the term's inclusion in the intro, since they come along and remove it from the article. It would be disingenuous to ignore these users' opinions. Rhobite 02:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, opinions need to be taken into consideration. I'm going to give a simple thing below where people can vote for or against 'Wacko Jacko' being in the lead along with 'King of Pop'. If that fails I'll try creating a mediation sub-page. --Manboobies 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that removing both names is a more than fair compromise for those who wish to include “WJ”. Also, it is very impractical to accuse someone of making personal attacks based what was said. I recall Funky Monkey identifying him/herself as a person who truly does not support Michael Jackson. It was displayed on his/her userpage with the other identity icons although it seems to have been removed, likely out of fear of being discredited on this issue. At any rate, I see nothing wrong with removing both names and I hope the “Whacko Jacko” lobbyists will feel the same. Siddhartha21 16:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep both nicknames or get rid of both nicknames from the intro. I prefer to keep both because it's a fairly typical practice in biography introductions, and not just here at the Wikipedia. Take a look at the article on Louis Armstrong. Two of his many nicknames are listed there and "Satchmo" could easily be seen as "insulting" since it referred to the size of his rather large mouth. Just because some fans don't like the WJ nickname is not sufficient reason to keep it out. This is not a fan page. I always read the Wacko Jacko name as light hearted and humorous, although as the years go by, I appreciate that many have come to use it only pejoratively. But really, this shouldn't be a major source of contention. I could live with either result. Ande B 10:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Karma will deal with you, blasphemer.


Keep Wacko Jacko and amend "King of Pop" to "Self Titled King of Pop" A quick yahoo search using the phrase "king of pop" (in parentheses) returns references that aren't exclusive to Michael Jackson. There is nobody else on the planet who's known as Wacko Jacko. Cazzawaw 19:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not self titled at all, because Michael is universally known as the King of Pop, as he is the biggest selling solo artist in history and has the biggest selling album ever. You might as well call Elvis Presley the self-titled King of Rock 'n' Roll, because most acknowledge all he did was steal black music and many people believe Little Richard should have been given that title. Lastly, Dame Elizaberth Taylor proclaimed Michael as "the true King of Pop, Rock and Soul" in 1989, so everybody is aware of the title and that it was awrded by others.

I seriously, seriously hate to be my own devils advocate here but google says:
Results 1 - 10 of about 174,000 for wacko jacko michael jackson
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,600,000 for the gloved one michael jackson
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,480,000 for MJ michael jackson
Results 1 - 10 of about 12,100,000 for the king of pop michael jackson
--Manboobies 01:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So... The least deserving of a place out of these is wacko jacko. MJ seemingly also merits a mention, as does "the gloved one" however cringeworthy it may sound, and despite the number of disturbing hoaxes regarding the name, such as the time somebody posted a picture en-mass on the 'net of a sequin glove with human excrement on one of the fingers as proof of guilt in the molestation trial.--Manboobies 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just tried a google search now, but my results are a bit different for some reason:
Results 1 - 10 of about 139,000 for "wacko jacko" michael jackson
Results 1 - 10 of about 32 100 for the "gloved one" michael jackson
Results 1 - 10 of about 1 050 000 for MJ "michael jackson"
Results 1 - 10 of about 647 000 for the "king of pop" michael jackson
--Count Chocula 01:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

They vary depending on whether or not you use quotation marks around any of the phrases. But regardless, they all still clearly pass the Google test. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
They do yes. Seems to be a valid case for the self-explanatory "MJ" though, as it seems to be quite frequent to refer to him. In fact most people shrink it to that. I think "the gloved one" should be referred to lower down in the text as something referred to by extremely hardened fans.--Manboobies 00:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Last week, I asked some colleagues who they thought the term 'King of Pop' referred to. The first answer was "Whacko?" 'Nuff said. Noisy | Talk 18:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem settling for the removal of both names and I feel this is a very reasonable compromise considering this isn’t really a detrimental issue. Unfortunately there seems to be very few people willing to compromise on either side at this point. Siddhartha21 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that many articles in Wikipedia include well-known nicknames in the introduction. I'm sure you sincerely believe that removing both 'King of Pop' and 'Wacko Jacko' is a compromise, however that position ignores the notability of those nicknames. As Sarah and others have stated, an encyclopedia is for facts whether one agrees with them or not, and both monikers are notable enough for inclusion in the intro. Cheers, Ian Rose 03:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Based on the reasoning of encyclopedic value, you have to acknowledge that other nicknames should be included in the intro as well. Siddhartha21 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But yet, you insist on edit warring with everyone. Feh. --Mhking 16:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well considering that I’m one of the very few people willing to make compromises on this issue, I have the benefit of the doubt here. Although I feel “WJ” alone should go, I feel removing all unofficial aliases from the intro would be acceptable. Siddhartha21 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Siddartha21, you may feel that you'll wear down those who formed and/or simply accept with good grace the consensus vote but if so I think you're dreaming. You may also feel that this is the 'tyranny of the majority' at work but, guess what, that's democracy (and Wikipedia) and it's time to get used to it. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC).

Ian Rose, you might want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and reconsider what you’ve said. Cheers, Siddhartha21 21:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A bold move but regardless of that apparently controversial word 'democracy' I think you'll find that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not supports more of what I've said than the practice of edit warring and ignoring the consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A bold move? I hardly consider it to be that dramatic of an event. I was merely addressing your visibly incorrect analysis of what Wikipedia is about. Everyone is prone to make these kinds of mistakes now and then when attempting to make a point, so don’t dwell on it. Siddhartha21 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ho-hum. I stand by my previous comment. Cheers, Ian Rose 16:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how to use this page, but I feel that this 'Wacko Jacko' moniker should be removed. That is NOT what Michael Jackson is known as. He has always been called the 'King of Pop'. That 'Wacko Jacko' is assinine, and disrespectful and should be taken down from this article. I though Wikipedia was a more intelligent forum that that.

You should remember that this article must include all points of view, not just the ones that glorify Jackson the most. Removing 'Wacko Jacko' simply because you think it to be offense, assinine etc. is not a valid reason, as you are breaching WP:NPOV. Its a prominent nickname used by both the media and the public, which deserves inclusion along with the 'King of Pop' moniker.--Count Chocula 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides his most prominent alias “King of Pop”, there are additional nicknames other than “Whacko Jacko” that aren’t being used in the intro. It isn’t exactly WP:NPOV to petition for “W.J.” while ignoring his other less derogatory aliases either. Siddhartha21 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know people were voting on this.

the British tabloids delighted in calling him "Wacko Jacko," a name he detested. [1]

Could this be placed in the references section? I don't know how to edit it. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with having Wacko Jacko in the intro. There is no reason to malign someone with a malicious nickname. Firstly, how would you like it? As well as it goes against NPOV and Wikipedia standards. We can have an article about Michael Jackson that discusses the nicknames without opening the article with them. If it takes removing both nicknames to remove "Wacko Jacko", I'm all for it. DavidBailey 12:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


preliminary results of vote

9 keeps 3 removes

For now the text stays.

Note: I didn't count IP addresses that voted. One IP address voted twice and numerous IP addresses appear to be sockpuppets who have no previous edits. I did say sign up for an account. I meant that, otherwise your vote is impossible to verify as your only vote - it is obvious some IP addresses that are posted above are from the same user after they have changed IP. Please note the vote is still in favour of keep even with the IP addresses counted.

Nor did I count addendum to the votes, just the keep or remove. I'm not here to grant you conditional favours, I'm here to write an article. In any case the addendums complicate the issue. Please note you may continue to vote and i will re-evaluate the issue again in august, which is when the next count will be. Please note I will not count IP addresses then, either - so sign up for accounts, and the one IP that signed keep and remove? Stop trolling.--Manboobies 06:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree entirely with not counting the IPs (whichever way the vote went). And people who sign up for accounts should sign up for ONE account. It is against Wikipedia policy to use multiple accounts to create the illusion of broader support for a position. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Manboobies and Sarah Ewart on this aspect. I think it's a standard and legit practice to discount IP votes. Ande B 09:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (hmm, hope I was logged in when I wrote that! Ande B.)
Forcing people to sign up for an account actually makes the votes less verifiable, as people can sign up for multiple accounts using the same IP. On the other hand, it's nearly impossible to fake an IP address. Anonymous IPs can be easily thrown out, and multiple IPs from the same ISP would be dead giveaways. Again, this straw poll is flawed and violates Wikipedia guidelines.
Only an admin can verify that a name matches an IP. So unless you're an admin, that's just not the way to handle this. -- ChrisB 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The link to the artist Prince currently links to the page on the Royal title of Prince. 84.70.27.35 18:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's been fixed. tv316 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Add +ca

Since the page is protected, I ask to any administrator to add ca:Michael Jackson. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.182.7.195 (talk • contribs) 23:11, March 27, 2006 (UTC)

SMP has done it for you. Thanks for letting us know. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Iraq war

What does Michael, nicknamed "The King of Pop", "Jacko", "MJ" and "The Gloved One", think about the war? - unsigned by 195.93.21.131

Jackson did a running commentary on the war in the song "We've had enough".--Manboobies 03:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge material into this article

There is a separate article about Michael's experience in Berlin when he held his baby over a balcony. It is titled 2002 Berlin controversy involving Michael Jackson. I think that material should be here, rather than tucked away with a title no-one would search for. However, this page is already quite lengthy. Your opinion counts on these matters so please tell us whether you support or oppose the addition of that material here. Right now there is a link to that article on theMichael Jackson page. Is that sufficient? Or should the Berlin article be re-named so it's easier to find? Thanks. Ande B 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be merged here. Possibly just trim it a little bit to make the content smaller, but definately not worth of its own page.--Jersey Devil 16:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Perhaps it needed a seperate article back in 2002, but by now it clearly ought to be folded into the rest of the Jackson file. Nedlum 17:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, merge and condense. It doesn't warrant a separate article. It was only written in January 2006, so I don't even understand why it was ever separate from the main article. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree - article should be merged and considerably edited down. Rimmers 03:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral. Go ahead but this may be unwise. --Manboobies 01:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree - merge this with the Michael Jackson article ASAP!!

The Berlin incident was a MAJOR incident in terms of Jackson's career, so it should me merged with his article. Just my thoughts on the matter. - Danmeister 10:39 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks Like Merge Votes Are Winning

It looks like we will merge the balcony baby article into this one. I need to leave the notice up for a week, I believe. So I will merge that article into this one next weekend unless we see a major shift in opinion. Thanks for helping with the decision. Ande B 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if someone merged the 2002 Berlin article into this one before I did! That's okay. I'll try to edit it some so that it doesn't repeat info or take up an undue amount of space. Ande B 23:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

I cannot believe that with active ongoing discussion on the inclusion of nicknames, the primary edit warriors are STILL insisting on warring and enforcing their own opinion on everyone else. Even though it is clear, at this stage, that they have no consensus for their actions. This is going to have to be taken for mediation. Talk about not acting with good faith. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You said it, Sarah. Ande B 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Siddhartha21 continues to change out the opening section, despite the general concensus (and also despite repeated admonishments) to leave it as is. This is incredibly frustrating; I think Sarah's suggestion of mediation is probably the best route. --Mhking 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mhking, you aren’t exactly in a position to be critical of someone editing the Michael Jackson intro when you have recently been doing the same thing in an even more persistent manner. Siddhartha21 16:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"more persistent"? Not hardly. I have reverted the page when the descriptors have been removed. Nothing more. The general vote as noted on this page was to keep the present structure. You have chosen to ignore this -- repeatedly. I am more than happy to take this to mediation, and though I cannot speak for the others here, I can safely say with confidence that I think most of them would agree with that step. The larger question is whether YOU would agree with that step. Given your past history of removing the introduction despite continued conversation to the contrary, I have to wonder whether you would or not. --Mhking 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't think Siddhartha would be genuinely responsive to mediation. Judging by his contributions, it is clear he is here with an agenda focussed entirely on removing "Wacko Jacko" from the article. I suspect that he would merrily carry on with his edit war regardless of mediation. He couldn't even stop for a few days while we were trying to reach a consensus. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree but can't part of the mediation process define that; he cannot edit certain articles or he will be banned? Maybe we should go through this route, as he is showing no good faith whatsoever and seems to be in violation of WP:POINT also. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  03:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the comments made by Sarah Ewart are very misleading. The epithet “W.J.” is addressed in another section of the article in which I have never removed or altered. The selective petition for “Wacko Jacko” while dismissing his other nicknames is what’s truly in violation of WP:NPOV. Unlike the majority of the “W.J.” lobbyists I’ve actually made compromises. I don’t feel the need to resort to such extreme positions that certain self proclaimed “non-supporters of Michael Jackson” have taken such as Funky Monkey who whishes me banned for the reason that my perspective on this issue does not align with his. Ultimately the argument for the mandatory use of “W.J.” in the intro can be applied to any of his known designations. Siddhartha21 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have not said anything "misleading" and if I have cite where instead of making vague and implied accusations. It is a fact that you are been edit warring against consensus. It is a fact that you are trying to wear the rest of us down by continuing your edit war. And it is a fact that you have contributed very little to Wikipedia outside your edit war here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating that I that wish to remove “W.J.” completely from the article when this clearly isn’t the case is what is misleading. As for what Sarah Ewart has deemed edit warring, it takes more than one person to do so and considering the fact that she has criticized only those whose opinions differ from hers in this regard reflects her level of sincerity on this issue. Siddhartha21 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel I have misstated your intentions. However, the fact remains you are persisting in editing outside consensus and are trying to ram your preferred version of the article down our throats. Furthermore, it's not about my opinion. If the majority of editors here said to remove WJ from the intro, I would support that and would tell people who insisted on putting it back in exactly what I have told you. I do not care one way or the other about Michael Jackson. And I do not appreciate your repeated implications about my personal character. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for Adminstrator intervention regarding this edit war at [2]. --Mhking 02:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation/Arbitration

OK - I think most of us are in agreement that this should go to the next step, given the proclivity of certain posters to continuously modify the opening section of the article, despite an overall agreement of most of the posters. What, exactly, is the next step? --Mhking 23:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The process is described here WP:M. Due to personal problems at the moment I cannot spend much time on wiki, I am prepared to add to the case if someone else can instigate it though. Cheers. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  23:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
From my reading, both sides have to agree to go to arbitration -- I get the impression that Siddhartha won't go. --Mhking 02:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No, both sides do not have to agree to go to Arbitration. Arbitration is meant to be the very last step in dispute resolution and it's kind of like instigating a kind of court-like hearing where one side is essentially "prosecuted". I have been involved in a recent Arb case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC/Evidence and the other parties most certainly did not consent to it. I really don't believe ArbCom would accept this case. They would likely tell us to take it to mediation or RfC. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Single or married

Did Jackson ever live with either of his wives? Or has he been in effect (if not in law) a bachelor all his life? I'm not making any assertions or trying to start a dispute here, but I got the impression that his marriages to Elvis Presley's daughter and to that other lady were (1) for publicity purposes or (2) just to get childen which would be legally his.

Let me ask it another way. We know he had weddings, but did he ever really have a marriage? If so, what was his married life like? Did he sleep in the same bed with his wife, go places with her, etc.? --Uncle Ed 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK Lisa Marie Presley claims they had a normal marital life, at least for a time. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarah, I just found that in Wikipedia:
  • Clearly, the man was married. Otherwise he would not have been able to be divorced! As to the nature or quality of his relationships, the only people who could know or who should care about that are Jackson and his ex-wives. And why should they give private details to the press? I sure wouldn't if I were them. As to your own doubts, why in the world do you even care? The way the media reports things, I am reluctant to base "intuitions" on their reports of any subject, let alone the private lives of celebrities. About the likelihood of a "normal" man dangling a baby over a balcony, well, you've just not seen enough family court horror stories by supposedly "normal" parents. I am not one to care whether a celebrity is "gay" or not. Ande B 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Lisa Marie and her mother spoke very openly about it on Oprah. They gave the impression that he basically put on a front of being a 'normal' guy but after some period of marriage Lisa Marie realised she was being used as a beard and got the hell out. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 05:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarah Ewart. As you can see, I'm not up on this sort of celebrity gossip stuff! I don't think I really want to be; it's hard enough to keep up with what's going on in my own life. ;-) Ande B 06:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that Presley and Jackson were like two 12-year-old pirates, but the problem is that only one could be the pirate and the other had to be the lady. I wonder if Lisa Marie saw it that way. Nah, that was her and Nick Cage I guess. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to go elsewhere if I want celebrity gossip. --Uncle Ed 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is Wikigossip, but unfortunately it is completely devoid of content. --Ezeu 01:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There's always Usenet for those who really like gossip and arguments! Ande B 02:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

try searching for ohnotheydidnt, it's a lj community. it gets all the gossip first. ALL the gossip. #1 etc.--Manboobies 03:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Elvis was 59 when he became Michael's father-in-law. The King of Pop was united with the King of Rock, even though Michael doesn't like Presley.—This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .


South Park video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mDayuQb1MsU&search=micheal%20jackson%20south%20park --Manboobies 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley matters

It is only mentionned that he was married twice, notably with Deborah Rowe. What about Lisa Marie Presley? She should appear on the introduction as his first wife, his first wedding, not to mention that they remain friends more than 3 years after divorce was pronounced. Everybody got more in mind that Michael Jackson married Elvis Presley's daughter than his dermatologist's nurse. I have respect for both (Lisa and Deborah), they should appear both on the introduction. Readerweb 16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro with Wacko and King of pop is just wrong

I used to edit this page a while back, only to return and look at it now - still I see the stupid references to King of Pop and Wacko Jacko.

PEOPLE... read the intro - Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958), also known as the "King of Pop" and "Wacko Jacko" - WRONG... Michael Jackson's name is just that, he does not have another deedpoll name "Wacko Jacko" or "King of Pop". The first line of the article should read "Michael blah blah, is an american musician etc etc. Get rid of the Wacko Jacko and King of Pop. Possibly in a separate sentence below this, mention can be made to both the names.

I have changed it...hopefully people will understand why. His name is only Michael Jackson - the other two 'nicknames' have been brought on by the people and so should be separate.—This unsigned comment was added by 138.130.223.93 (talk • contribs) .

-- Sorry I havent edited it, it is now locked from editing. Why?!! The page is going nowhere like this, seriously.—This unsigned comment was added by 138.130.223.93 (talk • contribs) .

--I'm curious why is there such a debate over the title King of pop for Michael Jackson and not even a close debate about Elvis being called the King Of Rock N Roll. It's been known that there are blacks who believe he shouldn't be called the King of Rock n roll and Little Richard should be. Elvis was given that title by fans, his record executes, and his Las Vegas show annoucer ( "The King has left The Building").Sony still calls Michael the King Of Pop on the new mjvisionary site, fans still definetly call Mj The King of Pop, and when Michael Is announced to performer he is referred to as the King Of Pop.The media that refers to MJ as Wacko Jacko is also the media that refers to Mj as Self-proclaimed King Of Pop. Doing that is just a way to get at Michael. So if there is going to be so much debate over Mj being called King of Pop, they should put something like white-proclaimed King of Rock n Roll for Elvis because there are those blacks who say Little Richard is not only the architect but the king of Rock n Roll. That would be a neutral pov because some people believe that he is not the King but there those who strongerly believe he is. Calling Elvis white-proclaimed is derrogatory statement as calling Mj Whacko Jacko.It would be fair for Mj To be called King of Pop because of his legacy and Elvis Presley King Of Rock n Roll for his legacy. I'm not a racist or have anything against Elvis I believe he deserves the title (I have his albums at Home) King of Rock n Roll. That's just an example of how this debate is unfair to Michael who is just as big or bigger then Elvis Presley.—This unsigned comment was added by 69.104.67.248 (talk • contribs) .

All Presley did was steal black music, as Michael's friend Marlon Brando noted. Michael and Marlon both hated Presley.—This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .

Fued with Eminem

Since his career started, Eminem has often been known to make fun of other artists. Although many of them are not thrilled with these comments, his victims often do not take serious action against him or in some cases are even flattered. However, that all changed when Michael Jackson was made fun of in the music video for Eminem's "Just Lose It". In the video, Eminem's hair catches on fire (just like Jackson's hair did while filiming a Pepsi commercial), his nose falls off (many feel that Jackson's nose will fall off due to plastic surgery), and he plays with young boys (Jackson has often faced contorversy in alleged molestation charges).

Disgusted with the video, Jackson asked MTV, VH1, and BET to pull the video off the air. In a move that some feel has racial undertones, only BET removed the video. However, in BET's defense, they claimed that it was in support of their long standing professional relationship with Jackson. Not surpringly, Jackson was not happy with MTV and VH1's decision to air the video anyway.

As the video came out, while Jackson was dealing with his most recent child molestation charges, Jackson publicly spoke out on the matter for damage control. He admitted that he was a fan of Eminem as an artist, but felt that he had crossed the line. Eminem in his defense claims that the attack was not a personal one against Michael Jackson, and has even pointed out to the lyrics of the song, which state, ""Come here, little kiddies, on my lap, Guess who's back with a brand new rap, And I don't mean a rap as in a new case of child-molestation accusation.... I've done touched on everything but little boys, That's not a stab at Michael, That's just a metaphor, I'm just psycho."—This unsigned comment was added by Connor1234 (talk • contribs) .

Eminem also said though he is not the first king of controversy, he is the biggest since Elvis Presley to steal black music just to get himself wealthy.—This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .

Dudes, dudettes, I think it's arbitration time

23:03, 16 April 2006 Funky Monkey (rvv. Can this go to arbitration now?). I think so, yes. Who wants to submit it? I'm a n00b to doing that, somebody here must be aware of how to do it, I'm also busy developing a software project at the moment but i will read and give my opinion on any issue and vote on it if i am informed of the arbitration location on wiki. --Manboobies 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think arbitration is premature and I really don't think the arbitrators would accept it anyway. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. " In order to get this article FA status the edit warring needs to be sorted out. Jackson will release material soon. The article needs to be ready for that.--Manboobies 08:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Info for the 'King of pop' moniker

I've noticed that theres some history of 'Wacko Jacko' nickname in the article but theres none for the 'King of Pop' so I've added a short paragraph. If anyone has got more (or better) info feel free to alter or add to it. --Count Chocula 14:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

King of pop/Wacko Jacko - NICKNAMES..... not names

People please ... who here doesnt understand the BASIC fact that BOTH Wacko Jacko and the King of Pop ARE NOT NAMES ... they are monikers or nicknames, which have come about from different groups (for different reasons). You can't put them in the same sentence as the one describing his REAL, BIRTH name of Michael Joseph Jackson. He IS also know by those nicknames, but they are just that - nicknames - and so shouldnt be in the first sentence.

Even if in the next sentence, it will be an improvement.

I promise you won't find an encyclopedia that uses nicknames as 'other names' in the same context as someones birth name.

Unless this is fixed, in my opinion this page will never develop. KEEP the nicknames, but GET RID of them from the first sentence, which should only have his birth name.

Someone must be able to see this. I am neutral on MJ but really feel that one part spoils the whole article! 138.130.223.93 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the use of these nicknames are used in a somewhat inappropriate context however some people really want certain nicknames included. If nicknames are to be used then you have to include them all or it is not NPOV. Ken Y. 21:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

i liked your brit award edit ;)--Manboobies 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Slight errors?

Congratulations on a much improved article & on protecting it from vandals. I've noticed a couple of possible errors: In the section on Off the Wall it says this is his 1st solo album (it isn't); secondly in the section about Captain EO it says this was his first appearance on the big screen (that would be The Wiz). Design 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Second pre-final vote count

CHANGE: Please note this is not a final vote count. Voting for the subject of whether Wacko Jacko and the King of Pop as nicknames should be left in the article intro is still in progress until THE END OF MAY.

Current vote results: Keep:9 Remove:6

Once more I have not counted obvious sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses. The vote is in favour of leaving the two nicknames so for now they stay. Thank you for your vote, and if you haven't voted, please submit your vote before JUNE! AT THE END OF MAY I will make a final count. I will make a full report of who was and wasn't counted which will be based on the same rationale of not counting sock puppets and IP addresses - this will make voting totally transparent which I feel should be the standard in this vote.--Manboobies 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think August is far too long to leave the vote open; general votes on WP are far, far shorter. --Mhking 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree, would've thought end of May was sufficient, or certainly not past June. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This isn't WP though. I want everyone to get a chance to vote so that there can be no accusations that I held the vote open for too short a time.--Manboobies 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
you're right, may would be better--Manboobies 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I edited my vote into the results. DavidBailey 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You should add your vote below, i'm not reading votes made here there and everywhere. --Manboobies 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I did, but may I add that it is not sane keeping the voting open this long and only serves to keep something that is broken in place longer than it should be. DavidBailey 19:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Roars Back With G-Unit!!!!!!=

Include this Billboard report in wikipedia article now please!

April 24, 2006, 3:45 PM ET

Jonathan Cohen, N.Y. Embattled pop star Michael Jackson will hit the streets in the coming weeks with the new song "Trial of the Century," which features 50 Cent, Lucy Diamonds and DJ Whoo Kid. The track will be found on Whoo Kid's mixtape "MJ Unit -- The Takeover," which will also feature five unreleased Jackson songs and mashups of his prior hits with songs from the G-Unit camp, Billboard.com has learned.

Sources say "MJ Unit -- The Takeover" will also boast exclusive tracks from 50 Cent, Lloyd Banks, Mase, Young Buck, Mobb Deep, M.O.P. and Lucy Diamonds. Jay-Z has also been contacted to contribute to the project, which will be released via G-Unit/Interscope and Jackson's new Two Seas label.

"Trial of the Century" will be the first taste of new music from Jackson since his June 2005 acquittal on multiple child molestation charges. He has since moved his base of operations from California to Bahrain, where he has begun preproduction on his first new studio album since 2001's "Invincible."

Sources say the first single from the as-yet-untitled project, "Now That I Found Love," will be released Nov. 21 and will also feature Lucy Diamonds. The track is being produced by Jackson and longtime collaborator Bruce Swedien, who engineered the classic "Thriller" and co-produced the album "Dangerous."


As previously reported, Two Seas Records is a joint venture between Jackson and Abdulla Hamad Al-Khalifa. U.K. record executive Guy Holmes has been tapped as CEO of the label and will also be tasked with managing Jackson's other business interests.

|http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002385180

Wahey! That can go in--Manboobies 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems it has been cautiously updated. I'll add the new version of the article.--Manboobies 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
All just a prank according to MTV.com http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1529602/20060426/50_cent.jhtml?headlines=true

--Chrisc21 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Children and skin color

The genetic explanation of his children's light skin color needs correction, something like: This is not always uncommon in biracial children, since the darker-skinned parent may carry recessive genes for paler skin.

The genes for pale skin are not dominant, they're recessive. The spectrum of human skin color is the product of incomplete dominance and the interaction of several different genes. Lisa 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose you're basing that on any sources you've read are you? Because I've been looking to source that article with recessive/dominant characteristics of human beings and I can't think where to begin book-wise.--Manboobies 15:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll look for a source on this. There is lots of information out there on melanin in various animals, and in most species darker colors show some form of dominance or incomplete dominance over lighter colors. Lisa 21:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Try doing a Google search of melanin and Polygenic Inheritance. Skin color is controlled by more than one gene. Melanin itself comes in different forms and colors. Some melanin tends to be distributed in the cytoplasm and some tends to prefer to be nearer or within the nucleus. This affects its apparent intensity. All of this can add up to unexpected results. It's been a few years since my last genetics calss, though, so pick up a genetics text for an accurate and complete answer. Ande B 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's kids, Prince I, Paris and Prince II are white coloured because their biological mother is mulatto. She is mulatto black and of Jewish descent, basically means that the kids genes can be safely traced right back and down to the time of the Nephilims [if the theory is true] who left their heavenly abodes and came to the earth. When the flood destroyed the earth, if it did, there are no conclusions that there were no links to date. Now, if such a gene does exist, that would explain why the three children's genes continue to overshadow Michael's 'mixed' genes! I don't think that you will find the history of Michael's kids in any science book, without any disrespect to a promising science world. Just as the Da Vinci code has its own theory, it is possible to have genes that are closer to the alien world take a more dominant colouring without any disrespect to the father, being that the three kids all look like Michael Jackson in any case, and in any colour!

Where are you getting this information from? O_o?--Manboobies 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Can we have more images of him when he was still black? savidan(talk) (e@) 00:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is that important?--Manboobies 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it be? His changes in appearance are one of the most notable things about him. ProhibitOnions 19:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I would've thought one of the most notable things about him were the a) music b)dancing, with skin falling into the category of simple tabloid fodder. Why feed that when we have nothing on his extensive dance capabilities. Why is it important to have pictures of him when he was black? As opposed to now? There are already black photos of him, and a source with links to his varying phases --Manboobies 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that more people would be interested in his change of skin colour and having pictures of his skin colour change would be fantastic, but I think it deserves it's own wikipedia article.


There is already a site dedicated to his changing colour and face, it's called Anomalies unlimited, it's the 2nd link when you search for michael jackson on google. An article on this would be by it's very nature both derivative and unencyclopedic. But yes, a few more pictures of him when we was black is fine i suppose, I actually have quite a rare one saved on my pc, I'll upload it at some point, it's an interesting one because he has that trademark strong jaw which people said he had surgery to make, when it looks like it may have been natural all along. Definately can go in ;)--Manboobies 01:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
In addition there is already a wikipedia article on Jackson's changing appearance. Physical appearance of Michael Jackson--Manboobies 07:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Michael Jackson still IS black. He's a black man with a skin disease right? Let's be careful of our word choice!!--Chrisc21 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wacko Jacko in lead along with King of Pop

Please vote below whether you would like to keep or remove the words "Wacko Jacko" in the lead, if you vote for their removal, "King of Pop" would also be removed for brevity. Do not give a reason here, discuss it in the section above, any discussion here will be removed along with your vote as I will see it as an attempt to mask results. Please sign up for an account to sign your vote with. --Manboobies 03:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: If you wish, I'm also keeping an eye on any discussion in the secondary section underneath this one. You can also discuss this issue there. Please note IP address votes are not being counted. I will consider votes by new users with no previous edits, or new users full stop - on a case by case basis. DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR OPINION HERE, DISCUSS IT IN THE ABOVE SECTION OR IN THE SECTION BENEATH I DESCRIBED EARLIER, AS I ORIGINALLY POSTED: "any discussion here will be removed along with your vote as I will see it as an attempt to mask results" --Manboobies 07:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Michael asked people to stop using the evil term in his 1993 interview, so it should definitely NOT be in this article.—This unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.131 (talk • contribs) .

  • The "wacko jacko" nickname should be deleted. An encylopedia is not the place to refer to global icons by names given to them by the tabloids.—This unsigned comment was added by 129.29.227.4 (talk • contribs) .

Remove There is no need for the insulting nicknames.Mini melts 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove Absolutely no excuse for hateful, hurtful and insulting name-calling. The term shouldn't be printed or mentioned anywhere and never should have been. Dark Artist 22:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


secondary discussion on Wacko Jacko nick name

I've removed this from the voting section because this user is debatedly a sock puppet, I have however moved it mainly because of the discussion which is cluttering up the voting part. This is nothing personal against the debate (otherwise i wouldn't have created the poll ;), but I can't read votes in amongst discussion. For the debatedly sockpuppet user - please, I said "Do not give a reason here, discuss it in the section above, any discussion here will be removed along with your vote as I will see it as an attempt to mask results." I am trying not to enforce this on everyone who is just leaving the odd comment after their vote, but I will enforce removal if I see your comments causing too much disturbance on this section. --Manboobies 07:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are no other famous person on which Wiki's article would advertise rather marginal and insulting nickname. The fact that WJ exists in the first paragraph of the article exactly shows that there is no "neutral" point-of-view policy. Oxford dictionary tells that "wacko" is "Derogatory Slang". DenisRS 22:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If you have a problem with nicknames on other articles then bring it up on their respective talkpages, not here. 'Wacko Jacko' exists in this article because it's a prominent nickname used by both the media and the public, like 'King of Pop'. It was not included on the basis of it being 'insulting or derogatory', that is immaterial. We are trying to represent all points of view here, and removing a nickname because it doesn't glorify Jackson isn't helping.--Count Chocula 00:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If its to stay, it should mention clearly that the name is indeed derogative and is not known to be advocated by either Jackson or his fanbase. - Deathrocker 04:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add that later on in the article along with the section on it.--Manboobies 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No way should that term be allowed. It does not define who he is, just how the judgemental media refers to him. We are tired of the media's double standards when it comes to influential african americans. If GWBush does not get marginal insulting nicknames included in articles about him, then Mike Jack shouldn't either. Liberian Ghost 20:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't put discussion in the voting section, or your vote gets removed. Like in this case.--Manboobies 16:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wacko Jacko" should be removed, at least from the lead paragraph. It is decidedly POV. Let me explain: while "King of Pop" was devised by Jackson and his management team, it was a term that was popularly used by both supporters and detractors. (Even if the reference was something like "the so-called King of Pop".) "Wacko Jacko" is a term only used by detractors. It twists the balance away from a neutral point of view, as there's no offset for it. It should be noted in the article that the tabloids often refer to him as "Wacko Jacko", since it is notable. However, including it in the lead damages NPOV by weighting the beginning of the article toward detractors.

To be honest, I think the most reasonable solution is to remove both from the opening paragraph. "King of Pop" should be added to the 80s section and discussed (including its origin), and "Wacko Jacko" should be added to the 90s section, as those periods accurately relate to the use of each term. (80s = musical dominance, 90s = popular notoriety)

I'm not sure the vote will ever provide consensus, but I think the above would provide the most encyclopedic and NPOV solution. -- ChrisB 22:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The text is there because it has been there for a very long time, it's one of the only things left in the article from early 2005. It was originally added as an after thought but has quickly become the most controversial part of the article. It is only attacked by a small contingent of users. It does have large amounts of consensus spanning no less than 4 archives of this talk. It's only recently that a (presumable) troll added that we hadn't had a vote when we in fact did have an informal show of hands that I stuck the vote up. It was quickly swallowed by a veritable swathe of aliases, sockpuppets and those who wish to appease them. It is staying because it represents wiki editors against vandalism, whilst anyone who votes against it is voting for appeasement, a tactic which is known to be inherently flawed. The ideal solution is to block the trolls, vandals and sockpuppets, a measure which is in process, and which the vote has brought obvious candidates out for blocks to be applied to. Despite this, I should note the vote is in favour of keeping the text, and I'm a fool to ignore democracy ;)--Manboobies 02:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I have not been following this whatsoever, but keeping it because it "represents wiki editors against vandalism" is absolutely ridiculous. The article should come first, not some show of force against an irrelevant enemy. I'm not arguing this on appeasement grounds, I'm arguing it because it's the most NPOV version that the article can maintain.
Additionally, this straw poll is entirely flawed. People have given multiple answers, yet the votes are being counted as for or against. And, regardless, Wiki straw polls do not work via majority rule. As it says in Wikipedia:Consensus: "The discussion itself is more important than the statistics." And it's hard to ignore that several opinions are being ignored in favor of a for/against conclusion.
Thirdly, someone could step in right now, submit a rewrite that improves the article and makes the voting process moot. These steps should not preclude that from happening. -- ChrisB 02:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The poll is not flawed, it takes into account sockpuppets and new users, and is as secure as any poll on wikipedia. Please note I will seek your account to be temporarily blocked if you vandalise it again against consensus.--Manboobies 18:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Read this and get back to me: Wikipedia:Voting is evil. You've entirely missed the point of what polls are for. You've hijacked this article to push through a narrow point of view for which there is a more than reasonable solution. You're ignoring countless guidelines. So, if you feel I've vandalized the article, feel free to report me. -- ChrisB 19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

king of pop/wacko jacko bit .. please change it to this

I know there has been so much talk about these. BUT, the truth is that both are just moniker's given by various parties (king by fans, wacko by media & haters). NEITHER are actual aliases.... so saying "Michael, who is also known as blah blah" is wrong. Full-stop.

I think it should be changed to read this: "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American musician whose successful music career and controversial personal life have been at the forefront of pop culture for the last quarter-century." then somewhere else...maybe the next paragraph: "He is often referred to by the monikers "King of Pop", and "Wacko Jacko" - the first from fans, and the second from detractors and quite often the media".

Even if that second sentence is changed, NO encyclopedia would have that he is "also known as blah blah" in the first sentence. His name is Michael Joseph Jackson.

PLEASE ... someone change this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.223.93 (talk • contribs) 20:34, April 16, 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable - why didn't you do it? kylet 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't, there's a huge consensus on this issue. It's not in favor of this, either. --Manboobies 01:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is not deleting the nicks, but just expanding on them, what is wrong with that? kylet 11:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the nicknames are already expanded upon in the article, although 'King of Pop' is still a bit hazy due to the conflicting sources of its origin. As it stands the nicknames are introduced in the first paragraph then expanded upon in the body of the article, which is common practice.--Count Chocula 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not essential that any nickname be included in the intro, even the most widely known ”King of Pop”. Michael Jackson has other known nicknames besides “Whacko Jacko” yet they are not included in the intro. Also there is hardly a “huge” consensus on this issue as Manboobies has claimed but in actuality there has merely been a small faction of a few users who are actively lobbying to push their point of view to specifically include “W.J.” while showing no interest in including his other nicknames. Siddhartha21 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the article should say "and pejoratively as Wacko Jacko" as it has been proven it is a derogatory term, and I believe "MJ" should also be included as it has been proven the name has significance. I am not pushing a dictatorship set of ideals. Will you discuss this with me on my talk page rather than continuing to deleting it? There is no need for the mediation if we just reach a decision together and I will act on behalf of those who seek to keep the name here. I am not pushing a anti-Jackson bias. --Manboobies 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all or none of his nicknames should be used. Ken Y. 02:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that they all nicknames should be removed from the opening paragraph and covered in the article. 69.134.166.174 03:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Implemented the vast discussion on the topic with the best compromise that I think can be made. The nicknames are in the second sentence and ALL the nicknames, including who usually states them are there.

To quote:

Michael Joseph Jackson (born 1958-08-29) is an American musician and entertainer whose successful music career and controversial personal life have been at the forefront of pop culture for the last quarter-century. He has at times been referred to by fans, promoters, and the popular media as The King of Pop, or so-called King of Pop, and by detractors and the tabloid media by the perjorative Wacko Jacko.

How is that? DavidBailey 03:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Very encyclopaedic and non-controversial. Is completely from the NPOV and does well in organizing major importances in Jackson's life. I vote to keep the current alterations by User:DavidBailey. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
At least have the courtesy to talk to the group first. It is obvious that this is a contentious issue. The note in the article asks that any alterations to the opening paragraph be discussed first. I've reverted the paragraph, pending discussion here. --Mhking 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed until everyone is blue in the face. The text of that paragraph is a compromise between all of the suggestions made and includes some of the best ideas to avoid controversy while providing all of the information in the original. If that text is truly objectionable, I want to hear the reasons why, otherwise, I think it needs to stay there, at least until this discussion winds down. What is currently there is obviously not encyclopedic, nor following wikipedia guidelines. I think it wrong that some who choose to have it present would use the endless requests for discussion to keep it there. Opened new topic below, please put comments there. Thanks. DavidBailey 19:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

First sentence changed very slightly

Glad to see that people have added that the KoP and WJ are only nicknames - not other names of his. I changed it to "commonly" known, as alot of fans/haters will know him by both those names. I think that reads better than "also" known as etc etc..... Also, I changed King of Pop to "The King of Pop" - isnt it actually that instead of just King of Pop.... like fans would say THE king of pop ...... If this is strictly not right then please change it - but it reads better IMO. Andrew Heyn 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, see no issue with this slight mod. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Likewise; it preserves the concensus, yet is a minor compromise. --Mhking 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree, it sounds like weasel wording.--Manboobies 20:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson/Archive_5&oldid=390090055"