Talk:Jacko

Untitled

I removed (also called Wacko Jacko) because it isn't relevant. This is a disambiguation page, and need only contain pointers to articles that might be reasonably searched for as Jacko. There's no need to include denigrating nicknames for the targets here. Tuf-Kat 14:30, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

You are merely trying to decrease my social credit with these barrages. Cease and desist. ScapegoatVandal 15:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a rationale for including it? Your latest change wasn't even accurate -- people call him Jacko all the time. Tuf-Kat 15:40, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think the comment called Wacko Jacko by his critics justifies the entry perfectly. Please don't start a revert war over something so trival, and widely known. -- Longhair | Talk 15:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and understanding disposition of neutrality. ScapegoatVandal 15:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't do revert wars. I have no problem with the article on Michael Jackson discussing his nicknames, but this is a disambiguation page. Tuf-Kat 16:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV template, and will file a request for comment. Tuf-Kat 16:07, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess to say Michael Jackson doesn't like the nickname either, but you'd be a lot more useful defending his rights on the court house steps in his time of need than removing 5 harmless characters that have been used to describe the man ever since I can remember. -- Longhair | Talk 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with whether or not the nickname is in use, nor do I give a shit about Jackson's legal troubles -- a disambiguation page is only supposed to give pointers to the article topics, not explain other words for the same thing. This is not about "five harmless characters", since I have no qualms about a disambiguation page here, pointing to Michael Jackson, I am disputing that Whacko Jacko is necessary here. I have removed the bit about hardly being called Jacko singularly, because that's just plain false [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Tuf-Kat 16:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I see your point entirely, and realise the concept of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to the exact article they require when multiple exist sharing the same name. They're not suitable for padding with trival information.

In this case, Whacko Jacko has direct relevance to the term Jacko. Michael Jackson is a generic sounding name in itself. I'm sure there's 100's of Michael Jacksons out there, with some quite possibly destined for a Wikipedia article themselves one day. The term 'Jacko' is also commonly used for someone named Jackson. Further disambiguating the artist with another known nickname, Whacko Jacko, defines him squarely, and for most people, needs no explanation. -- Longhair | Talk 16:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point too, but if there are other Michael Jacksons known as Jacko, they should be added to the list here. The fact that one of them is also known more specifically as Whacko Jacko is not important and would not help anyone find the article they're looking for -- if all they know is the name Whacko Jacko, that's what they'd search for and we should have a redirect from Whacko Jacko instead. Tuf-Kat 16:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Longhair, this tactical filibuster is truely about his hatred for me. He has stalked my other edits for similarly dubious reasons. Take no heed of his ignorant words spoken arrogantly. ScapegoatVandal 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is he your ScapegoatVandal? (joke) :). Let's let this pan out and see how the POV discussion takes place over the next few days. I hardly care about Michael Jackson myself. I'm only here because I created the disambig page to begin with. I'm happy with both views really. If we remove the reference to Whacko Jacko now, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll reappear before too long. -- Longhair | Talk 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<via edit conflict with Phil Welch> I only wound up here because Scapegoat has been filling talk:country music with ahistorical and pseudo-racist garbage (like a Negro spiritual is Voodoo), and some casual glancing at his contributions revealed some similarly pseudo-racist edits reverted by others. I reverted this one because it's just adding a derogatory nickname (for a black musician, I feel compelled to point out) to a disambiguation page that was disambiguating just fine without it. I could have, probably should have, but didn't revert other edits, like moving Viking colonization of the Americas to Norwegian colonization of the Americas (because the Vikings were not just from what is now Norway, and I doubt they could be logically considered Norwegian anymore than the ancient Babylonians could be considered Iraqi). But since I'm not knowledgeable on the topic, I haven't done anything (so claims of stalking are hardly credible: four reverts on three articles). Tuf-Kat 16:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yup...there Toughy is with his smear campaign. I rightfully predicted his future actions in disagreement with my challenging his New Age/Great Society dogma. He now has an axe to grind for a power and control struggle over my popularity. He wants to see me go down, which is all that consumes his mind right now. You can bet your ass that he will not let up until he's seen me blocked and banned. He's got an obsessive personality and I am on his shitlist. Negroes did in fact have Voodoo hand in hand with their spirituality. One need only to visit New orleans or the West Indies to see that. That Viking>Norwegian issue was about how DENMARK and SWEDEN did not commission any of the settlements in the North Atlantic Scandinavian colonies. DENMARK and SWEDEN already have their separate articles and any "possible" scope of their involvement could rightfully be covered there. The Norwegian descendents will proudly tell and brag of their Norwegian heritage, but this Toughy here likes thieving people of their rightful descent as if it were this or that. He likes pretending that we're all the same and no differences qualify for notice. He thinks that White Blues are Black Blues and that Whites didn't live in slavery and hard working life with no release and no uplifting spiritual music either. He is a liberal/leftist crackpot and I will not let him keep me and my kind down for the count. No matter how hard he tries, I will not submit to his arrogant bigotry. He's trying to invent some sort of race issue out of Jackson, whilst I edited the article due to the news reports on ol' Wacko! The nerve of this rotten fool to keep on interfering like a sore loser with nowhere to go, certainly doesn't rate up to a decent editor in my book. He wants blood for thought. ScapegoatVandal 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Wacko" reference isn't necessary. Now get a life! :) — Phil Welch 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You actually think this will go away? ScapegoatVandal 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard the "Wacko Jacko" reference myself. For this name to be here, please refer to a newspaper article or other media source with this wording. Samboy 23:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it gets 130,000 google hits (including The Guardian and FoxNews) -- I know it's in use, but that's an argument for a redirect from wacko jacko, which is a separate issue. This dab page already explains that his nickname is "jacko"; the fact that it is often preceded by "wacko" is only relevant to the main article (if that), where it can be presented in context and with the appropriate documentation. Tuf-Kat 01:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

(also called Wacko Jacko) really doesn't belong on a disambig page. Save it for the article! Dan100 17:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The name exists, ergo this is perfectly reasonable. I've heard it a number of times. Personal opinions should not reflect in wikipedia content. --Tothebarricades 20:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the name exists is an argument for a redirect from wacko jacko. The dab page Jacko already contains a pointer to Michael Jackson, which functions perfectly well without introducing a derogatory nickname that isn't cited or explained. Tuf-Kat 04:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are duplications everywhere on the Wiki. It doesn't make it cluttered, but helpful. You can keep a fascination about Michael to yourself. Listen to the guy above you. By the way, we don't need a redirect. This should be enough. Talk about wasting space. ScapegoatVandal 06:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything about duplications, clutter or wasting space. Please respond to the arguments presented. Tuf-Kat 07:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have my own argument in addition to those, whether you find it valid or not. ScapegoatVandal 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is your argument a secret? Am I supposed to trust that your argument is valid? I'd like to know what it is. You've made eight supposedly minor edits to this talk page [12] without providing an argument, valid or otherwise [13]. Tuf-Kat 07:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You can ignore twicefold the arguments just made by me, when you told me to 'Please respond to the arguments presented' and tell me this now. You have no respect as I have told others at the start of this debate. I say again that you have no point and that you have been here originally to attack me by eradicating another edit after inconclusivities from the Country music blunder. Pretend it isn't a crutch for you to move on. ScapegoatVandal 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is There are duplications everywhere on the Wiki? So your argument is that, because some information is repeated in multiple articles in the Wikipedia, this disambiguation page should give details on a disparaging variant of one individual's nickname? In what way is this helpful? There is an entire article on Michael Jackson where you can write about his nicknames to your heart's content. Noting that duplication occurs is not an argument, nor is it a response to my arguments. Tuf-Kat 08:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You have a funny way of being serious about this. It's just a smear campaign. I am done arguing with you. You know my positions. Have a nice day sir. ScapegoatVandal 08:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Tuf-Kat is right when he suggests creating a redirect at wacko jacko, which could be a search term, but this phrase just doesn't belong on this page. Dan100 (Talk) 20:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The current verbiage describing him as "the former Jackson 5 member and solo superstar" is entirely adequate, and written from a NPOV. If it ain't broke, any attempt to "fix" it is probably inappropriate. Tverbeek 23:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)