Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. It's been fixed. tv316 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor link error

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add +ca 

message: 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)
thread_title: Iraq war

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge material into this article

message: 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)
thread_title: Looks Like Merge Votes Are Winning

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation/Arbitration 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Lisa Marie Presley matters

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "(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)
thread_title: Dudes, dudettes, I think it's arbitration time

message: 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)
thread_title: Info for the 'King of pop' moniker

message: 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)
replies: text: i liked your brit award edit ;)--Manboobies 01:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of pop/Wacko Jacko - NICKNAMES..... not names 

message: 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)
thread_title: Slight errors?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree, would've thought end of May was sufficient, or certainly not past June.  Cheers, Ian Rose 01:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: you're right, may would be better--Manboobies 02:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited my vote into the results. DavidBailey 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should add your vote below, i'm not reading votes made here there and everywhere. --Manboobies 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Second pre-final vote count

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmm. It seems it has been cautiously updated. I'll add the new version of the article.--Manboobies 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Michael Jackson Roars Back With G-Unit!!!!!!=

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Where are you getting this information from? O_o?--Manboobies 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children and skin color 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wacko Jacko in lead along with King of Pop 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is not deleting the nicks, but just expanding on them, what is wrong with that? kylet 11:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  king of pop/wacko jacko bit .. please change it to this 

message: 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)
replies: text: I, for one, see no issue with this slight mod. Cheers, Ian Rose 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Likewise; it preserves the concensus, yet is a minor compromise. --Mhking 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree, it sounds like weasel wording.--Manboobies 20:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence changed very slightly