Talk:Prince (musician)

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making additions to this article, or making suggested additions on this article's talk page. Additions made without references which meet this criteria may be deleted as vandalism. Blogs, emails, fansites and statements made on the radio (unless there is a citeable transcript) do not meet this criteria.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2016

Please change:

Sinead O'Connor spoke about her relationship with Prince in an interview with Norwegian station NRK in November 2014. She said that Prince had summoned her to his house after "Nothing Compares 2 U", a song that Prince wrote which became a worldwide hit for O'Connor in 1990. O'Connor said, "I made it without him. I'd never met him. He summoned me to his house—and it's foolish to do this to an Irish woman—he said he didn't like me saying bad words in interviews. So I told him to fuck off." O'Connor alleged that the row became physical. "He got quite violent. I had to escape out of his house at 5 in the morning. He packed a bigger punch than mine."[174]

to:

Sinead O'Connor spoke about her relationship with Prince in an interview with Norwegian station NRK in November 2014. She said that Prince had summoned her to his house after "Nothing Compares 2 U", a song that Prince wrote which became a worldwide hit for O'Connor in 1990. O'Connor said, "I made it without him. I'd never met him. He summoned me to his house—and it's foolish to do this to an Irish woman—he said he didn't like me saying bad words in interviews. So I told him to fuck off." O'Connor alleged that the row became physical. "He got quite violent. I had to escape out of his house at 5 in the morning. He packed a bigger punch than mine."[174] However, O'Connor's interview contradicted what she had told Rolling Stone in a 1991 interview, where she claimed that he threatened violence but did not go through with it; Prince has responded to the allegations, stating that "it never happened." (source:http://prince.org:81/img/8b87dbb606.jpg)

Not done for now: Cannot access link provided to verify content. But I'm skeptical of anything from a website that seems to be from the person in question. If you could provide a direct source for the Rolling Stone article that would be best. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I made the change, because I was able to access the URL which was not something generated by Prince or anyone associated with him. It was an image of a page from the relevant issue of Rolling Stone. What I added was a bit different, because I don't think O'Connor's 2 accounts were significantly different. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Rumours of Prince's Death

TMZ are reporting Prince has died, other sources are reporting that there was a death at his mansion. Does anyone have a solid source in his death? SPACKlick (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They're usually right. They reported Michael Jackson's death for hours before it was confirmed. (109.159.10.49 (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

I don't think we should say he died and not put the date of death in the intro. We can go with "reported", we'll know for sure whether he died or not in a few hours anyway.--RM (Be my friend) 17:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as how his death was hoaxed earlier this month I think we should have a multitude of independent sources before we put it on the page. Fox6 are now reporting it as well. SPACKlick (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

He died... please add it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.81.41 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

AP is also reporting on his death https://twitter.com/AP/status/723196712639193088 Iamcool234 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fox Business has confirmed Prince's death (talk) 21 April 2016 (CST)

Seems like a publicist just confirmed. http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/2016/04/21/death-under-investigation-at-princes-recording-studio.html JPanic15 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016

{{Recent death}} Cdpineda (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Death not yet confirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

What is the stupidest thing in in Wikipedia: Too willing moderators without common sense. He is dead. http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/21/prince-dead-at-57/ --87.94.227.144 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The stupidest thing on Wikipedia is reporting someone is dead when they are in fact not. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If TMZ is the only source, I would rethink my life decisions, TMZ is tabloid hack crap.

We've had that problem before with Ted Kennedy and Robert John Bardo. Its always best to wait until multiple WP:RS confirm the death.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016 - 2

Prince died on Thursday, April 21, 2016 Alexisjocelyn (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

HE'S DEAD https://twitter.com/AP/status/723196712639193088 (Bes2224 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

Associated Press is now reporting that his publicist has confirmed the death. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is dead, it is confirmed: http://www.vg.no/rampelys/musikk/prince-er-doed/a/23664591/, Huldra (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

GUYS HES DEAD http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/celebrity/legendary-artist-prince-found-dead-at-57-report/ar-BBs4G6y?ocid=spartanntp | http://www.tmz.com/2016/04/21/prince-dead-at-57/

 Done Done by someone else. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

As of this post, nothing is conclusive. Most reports are using either TMZ or Twitter as the source. Allreet (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Concurred. Reported does not mean confirmed. 134.174.140.214 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

BBC now confirming [1] and also currently giving an appreciation on the 6 p.m. main BBC1 news as I type this. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Billboard also confirmed - http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7341522/prince-dead

Billboard originally based its report on TMZ but has is now reporting the death has been confirmed by AP through Prince's publicist...as not in the link above. Allreet (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016 - 3

Add death date and location for Prince Joemeilinger (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016 - 4

price died in Chanhassen not mineapolis. Will cutler (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I know he died right away, and I give condolences to his dedicated fans. However, maybe skim down the intro to just four while details of his death may remain there? Why or why not? --George Ho (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

image

The image in the infobox is definitely a downgrade from mine. Doesn't have to be my image, but can somebody put up something livelier? Micahmedia (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Tvx1 19:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacy Section

One of the first things that happened after Prince's death was MTV airing an entire marathon of Prince Music Videos.

Sources:

• http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/mtv-marking-princes-death-upfront/155859
• http://kdvr.com/2016/04/21/remember-prince-by-watching-some-of-his-best-performances-music-videos/

Also, more news sources regarding his legacy:

• http://news.sky.com/story/1683030/princes-legacy-the-master-of-reinvention
• http://www.nytimes.com/live/prince-in-memoriam/prince-sales-skyrocket-on-itunes-radio-stations-pay-tribute/ [Sales of Prince Spike]
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/04/21/google-honors-prince-purple-rain-home-page/83363008/ [Google Doodle]

Yoshiman6464 (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Other sources

• • Prince and His Fashion Revolution (Rolling Stone)
  • Inspired Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Miguel

Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Redundant genres in infobox?

Please excuse this if my question has been asked before, but if the Minneapolis sound is a "hybrid mixture of funk, rock, pop, synthpop and new wave," why are funk, rock, pop, synthpop and new wave also listed in the genre section of the infobox? Wouldn't "Minneapolis sound," which is included, be sufficient and more concise?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Minneapolis Sound describes a particular, regional scene that he was tagged with for a bit, it's certainly not what the vast majority of journalism and critical writing on him categorizes his work under—it's always funk, R&B, rock, pop, etc. Guidelines dictate that the infobox should remain general. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

My issues with the infobox appear to have been resolved. It is now general and not redundant.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

New page about his death?

Would it be appropriate to create a new page "Death of Prince Rogers Nelson" similar to that of Michael Jackson? EternalNomad (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, not enough separate information to warrant it's own page, at least at this point. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie is the template here. kencf0618 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Quite right. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

The first one was a mistake, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

AKA

Jamie Starr; Christopher; Alexander Nevermind; The Purple One; Joey Coco; x18px; O(+>; The Artist Formerly Known as Prince; TAFKAP

I feel like this is overkill. Is there any way we could trim this list down? The last one seems like a simple abbreviation. What do others think? --John (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd pick the most/second most known and chop the rest. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep them, all attested stage names. I would add Camille, his voice alter ego of the 80s... Party time in heaven tonight! — JFG ^talk 00:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Facts?

I thought Wikipedia was about the facts? The article about Prince refusing surgery because it requires a blood transfusion merely claims "reportedly" without providing the source. The following page shows that such surgery can be performed without blood transfusions: http://www.healio.com/orthopedics/journals/ortho/2012-8-35-8/%7B49d96e9e-037f-43b1-8e4f-8e407c0e5c96%7D/revision-total-hip-arthroplasty-in-jehovahs-witnesses . I recommend removing the claim until it can be verified by an actual source. Corjay (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because it was "reportedly", and there are thousands of news articles recycling that claim. A BBC source has been added in which the whole story is judged "inconclusive" '''tAD''' (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That article is for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty, not for original hip replacement, and definitely not for a double original hip replacement. Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well then maybe you should look at this one: http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/3/306.full.pdf It's not that hard to do research, people. Let's stick to the facts, please. Corjay (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Reactions to the death of Prince merge

I feel at this time it is WP:TOOSOON to have a reactions article as we don't even know the cause of the singer's death yet. Yes the article will be made, but I feel we should wait a bit on it for the details to come in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A reaction page should be kept separate regardless of when it is posted. His being one of Jehovah's Witnesses makes it controversial and we do not need to show disrespect to his memory or his family by blowing up his Wikipedia page over unconfirmed reports about rejecting surgery. Corjay (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• Don't Merge - The way the page stands now, I don't think it should be merged or kept in the first place. It doesn't provide any encyclopedic information on Prince or his death. Super Sandwich1 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I redirected the page, for now lets wait on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A reaction article is ridiculous. He died, people will comment, there will be no lingering on the reactions of people much beyond today or tomorrow. No article on reactions to his death will ever have any encyclopedic and long-lasting value. Any reactions that are noteworthy can be placed in the article, however, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL must also be kept in mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about that one, we do have Death of Michael Jackson. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that a few lines about general responses (e.g., buildings and websites turning purple in tribute) would be appropriate. But individual quotes are not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Death of Prince can still happen as long as it is thorough, encyclopedic and appears to be more than a memorial, like the Reaction page. If nothing more arises from it, except the correct COD, then no. Michael Jackson's death affected more, I think, because he reached more of the general public, whereas Prince possibly didn't (additional branch articlewise). Addendum: 6 million pageviews DOD — Wyliepedia 05:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As I just stated at the other talk page where you said the same thing, that article will be nominated for deletion, as well. There's nothing notable about his death. And in answer to your comment, Knowledgekid87, Jackson's death was a whole different ballgame. Scandal, a trial, accusations against f murder. Unless that happens here (and I don't think it will), Prine's death remains non-notable. He died. It's sad, people are shocked, but it's not encyclopedic in the manner where a stand alone article is warranted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Any type of separate article about his death is completely unwarranted. While he is obviously among the most prominent musicians ever, there is nothing extraordinary or notable about his death, such that it would deserve its own article. Dirroli (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

It is WP:TOOSOON. The Death of Michael Jackson was especially notable with regards to the circumstances surrounding it and the subsequent court case. Should this issue arise (and there currently is no suggestion that there is) then a separate article might be warranted. That said, Death of David Bowie has been created in past few months and should there be similar reporting around the Death of Prince, it could be argued an article should be created. Karst (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I forgot one word. I should've said "there is currently nothing extraordinary or notable about his death". Dirroli (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

There is the mention of an earlier overdose, noted in this article. However, the source appears to be tmz.com, which is not reliable. Karst (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Again I feel that it is only a matter of time before the article is created. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not something to feel good about, but you're probably right. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:44, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

And I probably couldn't be more right about Death of Chyna's chances, but that one has drugs, Twitter reactions, mystery, gender issues, vegetarianism and mononyms, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:28, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

These lunatics get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:39, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Influence and trivia

While we should probably have an influence/pop culture secction, this facts addendum about the chapelle skit:

Prince also played basketball in high school, and continued to play it for recreation as an adult, which later inspired a famous Dave Chappelle sketch.[2]

is trivia. i removed the reference to chapelle, left the rest.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism during the afternoon

For a few minutes on the afternoon of Thu 21 Apr 2016 Eastern USA time, the top of this article bore a lot of seals and boxes stating that Prince was NOT dead. One image was obviously intended to be an instruction from the President of the USA not to edit the page to the contrary. I assume Wikipedia has blocked the snot out of the IP address of the vandal who posted that fraudulent nonsense?2604:2000:C682:B600:4DCB:5CB2:3531:DFFC (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The vandalism was taken care of by having the page protected. Usually editors are politely asked not to vandalize, If they persist, then they are blocked for a certain amount of time. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

People who commented on his death is getting coat-racky and spammy

In my opinion, the list of people who have commented or will comment on his death is already getting too coat-racky and spammy, and it can only get worse. I mean, heads of state and long-time historic household names (McCartney, etc.), yes ... but beyond that it's just going to be a coatrack. Is there anything that can be done to stem the tide of "insert-favorite-musician-here" additions? I mean, unless they had something extraordinarily meaningful and insightful to say, why mention anybody anyway? In the age of social media, everyone and his dog are going to comment. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ditto on the list of cities lighting buildings in purple. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with both of you. In fact, I was in the process of removing all the cities for the purple lights sentence but then got edit-conflicted because Lugnuts was doing it at the same time. ;) In terms of musicians who comment on his death, I wouldn't be opposed to removing that entire sentence about Obama and all the musicians. It's simply not notable making a general statement like that because that's what happens every time a very prominent musician dies; the president and tons of musicians express their condolences. If there are some noteworthy quotes from a short list of highly prominent musicians or other famous people, fine. But just randomly naming six to eight singers who expressed a condolence, when there will be literally be hundreds of them making statements, makes no sense. Dirroli (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that the Obama statement should be included. It has been noted by Spin, Rolling Stone and CNN. Karst (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Karst, due to the length and detail and significance (meaning, the import of Prince's career that Obama notes) of the statement. I think it bears quoting. Softlavender (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, if there are a short, select list of notable quotes from highly prominent musicians or other famous people, it's fine. But simply saying "U.S. President Barack Obama expressed condolences" is very generic and therefore not encylopedic at all. Literally every president expresses condolences whenever a very famous person dies, so of course it will be reported by many media sources. But a notable quote would be needed to making a mention of Obama worthy of being included. Dirroli (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The quote is notable and incisive. Softlavender (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What quote? Currently, there is no Obama quote in the article. Dirroli (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:38, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

And I would argue, as per the above, that one should be included. Karst (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

In response to InedibleHulk's "Excellent", I'm including a portion of the non-admin close statements at the linked discussion. They are, by-and-large, an echoing of my own feelings on the matter of comments by world leaders in response to certain events. Note that the editor's comments are in regard to a much more devastating an important incident, the Brussels terrorist bombing: "there is consensus to include a sentence at WP:NOTNEWS indicating that specific reactions and condolences generally do not qualify for inclusion. This alternative proposal effectively mitigates the concerns mentioned above, and many editors who voted oppose did indicate support for the idea that most reactions are not worth including. Very few editors supported indiscriminately listing all reactions from world leaders, and those who did failed to reconcile their position with WP:INDISCRIMINATE." Good argument against inclusion. I see inclusion of presidential comments as non-essential, especially in matters that aren't politically related. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Even less essential to the nearly seven billion potential readers who don't have a President Obama. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:25, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Great point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I see the point. I suppose the argument could perhaps be made that as the head of state where the subject here is a citizen of, it would perhaps merit inclusion. But I fully accept the consensus and that we should stick with solely a mention (as is the case now). Karst (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for mentioning when regular citizens meet their leaders, either for business, awards or handshakes. Actions speak louder than words. I was going to say I was fine with leaving the part where he and Stevie Wonder partied for Obama, but it's not even there to leave in. At least if it were, the part where he suddenly mentions Prince would make some sense, plotwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Excellent point by InedibleHulk ("Even less essential to the nearly seven billion potential readers who don't have a President Obama"). By the way, I don't know what "notable and incisive" Obama quote Softlavender was talking about, since I never saw a quote from him in the article. Dirroli (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I've included Obama with the rest. Fair enough for now? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the hatnote on Prince

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Prince#Hatnote regarding the hatnote on Prince and whether or not it should include a link to Prince (musician). Watchers of this page are welcome to participate in the discussion to help establish consensus for either keeping it removing the link to Prince (musician) in the hatnote. Steel1943 (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

writing

From the second and third sentences: . . . widely known for his eclectic work, flamboyant stage presence, and wide vocal range. He was widely regarded . . . Neither the adverbs nor the adjective are needed, and if such embellishments are thought to be essential, at least vary the terminology. Kablammo (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not use his actual name?

Why does the article use the name "Prince" throughout the text instead of the symbol he changed his name to? Erniecohen (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Because that's an old joke, and nobody ever really played along. They just called him "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince". That also got old quick. Now we do it how everyone does. The normal way. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

So shouldn't the symbol be used for the part of the text that covers his life between his name change and when he changed it back (in 2000)? This is what Wikipedia biographies of Ali and Abdul-Jabbar, for example. Erniecohen (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess if you're pushing to see the thingamabob in action, that section would be your likeliest target. But contemporary sources generally avoided it, too, in favour of what their '90s computers allowed. We generally follow suit with common names. Best to just reflect the reality: it was awkward, uncomfortable and uncatchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:08, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: The symbol wasn't a joke, it was a legal maneuver to avoid some unfair legal restrictions and constrictions the recording studio(s) was/were trying to pull on him. This is well known, and I'm wondering why (and very surprised that) this article doesn't cover that. Softlavender (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Aye. The joke was on them. Practical-like. Some would call it "trolling" today. But yeah, that's a weird omission. Second big thing I haven't seen here today. Anything else conspicuously absent? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Again, it wasn't a joke, practical or otherwise. He used the symbol because if he used any sort of actual name he would remain legally constricted by whatever nonsense they were holding him to. As for other omissions, I haven't followed Prince's career (besides the Purple Rain song and film) -- so for the one and only fact I know for sure about him to be omitted is a blinding oversight. Softlavender (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the same boat I'm in. I forget how "Purple Rain" goes, but I know I've heard it. Are you OK with calling it a "trick"? Maybe "funny business"? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That caused me to search for some better sources and post the info into the article. Softlavender (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Why "Illness and death"?

Since we have no inkling of any kind, as yet, about the cause of his death, why have we bunched it together with "Illness" in the new section title? In my opinion, we should not speculate, not even in the way we word headings. If we knew his sudden death was illness related (and if we didn't know he had just stated that his book would be revealing a lot of things about a lot of people), we could make a heading like that, already. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Everyone dies of illness. So while not inaccurate, it does go without saying in the header. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:00, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

Being shot in the head, or in the arm with a syringe, is not normally classified as "illness". Nor is falling off a balcony or down some stone staircase or breathing poisonous gas. I think you know what I mean. Can't we wait till we (possiby) find our whether or not Nelson died of what most of us would call "illness"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we both know what the other means. Though don't you think it might imply a connection more strongly if it was just called "Death", but talked of the flu-like stuff? At least the "and" here tells readers these are two things. And those two things are connected chronologically. That sort of organization is the glue holding the topics in his Career section headers together, too. No direct link between the Super Bowl and LOtUSFLOW3R. Is normal, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, April 22, 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I changed it from "death" during the flurry of death reports yesterday; at the time it was a subheading under personal life, and there were more than one "death" sections in the article which I removed. The change was entirely because I thought it looked better that way, I don't really like one-syllable "death" section headers because they tend to be one-sentence statements of fact, with any details about prolonged illness shoved in some other section, so I guess you could say the change was speculative. We had a bit about his recent emergency landing so it seemed appropriate, and I do expect we'll learn more about his brief illness and cause of death over the next few days, but I definitely didn't mean anything by adding "illness". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Serge makes a very good point about the "Illness and death" section title. That wording improperly implies that his death was directly related to his recent illnesses. While it may appear likely that there's a direct connection, we have no idea at this point if that's actually the case. And, no, InedibleHulk... it is obviously not true that "Everyone dies of illness". The categories/causes of death are natural (includes illness/disease), homicide, suicide, accidents, and undetermined. Dirroli (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are called manners. While illness and disease have come to be fairly synonymous in daily life, illness is just poor health or something that causes it. No healthy person has ever died. Not really important, though. Anything we write can be interpreted differently. That's English. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:46, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

We are not diagnosing or doing a post-mortem. We are reporting facts. He was seriously ill for several weeks (and that was reported even within the weeks before he died). He died. There's no point in moving the "Illness" part into a separate section (where would it go?). There's no point in omitting the illness part. There's no point in titling the section "Death", because it's about more than his death -- its about his weeks of serious illness as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The change to two separate headings (even when they were moved around a bit) was constructive. Changing the heading back to "Illness and death" was not, in my opinion, and goes against consensus here, so far. Changes are normally made in article text when consensus is clear. I respectfully repeat: can't we wait till we (possiby) find our whether or not Nelson died of illness? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Circulating article vandalism story

@Kiraroshi1976: @EvergreenFir:, et al. Someone may wish to examine and address, via review of Edit summary, the claim made in this vandalism story, at The Wrap. Note the error in its titling (hacked), and in the image shown, the appearance of the Redirected from…" line under the standard WIkipedia second line.

If such a vandalism ever appeared here, it should be readily apparent in the Edit history. If not in that or other records, it may well be a prank, something created in a sandbox, by someone punking The Wrap, or even by one of their staff. Otherwise, I expect they would have provided a link to the version (rather than claiming a screen shot before the vandalism was reverted). Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Apparently so. It was Heidi Wyss, now blocked, and the edit-summary of the page move (and move back one minute later) was immediately redacted [3], and the article semi-protected. Softlavender (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Curious and curiouser. Tell me, @Softlavender: does this questioning, that I ask of the diligent reverting Admin, make sense to you? Can you see any way that the outside communication of the offensive page (to the web publication, The Wrap) could have occurred other than by the offending editor? My reasoning is at the Talk page of the admin (see link just given). Rsvp here, thanks. I am trying to understand how this could have happened, given the 1 minute attentiveness of the diligent Admin. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Often vandals do $#!t like that in order to take a screenshot and post it on social media (including the less savory ones like Reddit or 4chan). That's possibly how The Wrap got it; they (or someone who then sent it to them) could have also simply clicked on it at the right time (the window could have been up to nearly two minutes); the third choice is yes they did it themselves, but that seems unlikely to me. In terms of the timing, when someone very famous dies, lots of admins place the article on their watchlists. In terms of the edit summary, etc., the (two) edit(s) has been WP:REVDELed [4], which means the content and the edit summary are now visible only to admins. Softlavender (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Initial autopsy report indicates no signs of suicide, trauma, or foul play.

Seems like important information until real cause is known. What do you think?   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_(musician)&oldid=prev&diff=716658468   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Get consensus first. There's no reason to have that in Wikipedia when he'd been seriously ill with flu-like symptoms for several weeks. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we don't do scandal-mongering. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

He's getting consensus. Or is there another process for that I am not aware of? I concur with his suggestion. This is not scandal-mongering. It's a confirmation that limits speculation. Corjay (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Consensus first for a controversial and contested edit that is not within Wikipedia's usual style. Do not re-add until there is a consensus to add it. To say the "real cause is unknown" is not true when he'd been seriously ill for weeks, even having to make an emergency landing to go to a hospital the week before. Our place is not to "limit speculation". Speculation, or discussing speculation, is for the media and the tabloids. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The report is based on statements from the medical examiner's office. All the hospital stay does is confirm that fact. The real cause does indeed remain unknown, but a professional medical examiner has declared that it is not suicide, trauma or foul play. Your idea of speculation is specious. A confirmation is not speculation. The fact that it limits speculation is merely a benefit, not speculation itself. Corjay (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest that it be put at the bottom of the "Illness and Death" section. It does not need its own section or subsection. Corjay (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper and we surely shouldn't give tentative updates in bits and pieces as they roll in, especially when it's a BLP and the content is about the subject's death. And including what his death was not isn't what's important or appropriate for an encylopedia article, like it would be for a newspaper and other media. Let's wait for the final determination and then use what top quality sources report. Dirroli (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a coroner's report is not top quality? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

A coroner's report is a WP:PRIMARY source. Moreover, the official full final autopsy report will not be released until a week or two from now, per reliable media sources. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Daniel, my comment had absolutely nothing to do with the source and everything to do with the content itself. My point is that we don't know the cause of death yet and therefore need to wait for reliable sources to tell us. From an enyclopedic standpoint, we don't care what didn't cause his death; only with what did. You started this thread by saying "Seems like important information until real cause is known", which is completely contrary to how we edit an encylopedia. Unlike newspapers and other media, which give blow by blow accounts of everything that's reported, an encylopedia waits for the key, relevant information (what you call the "real cause") to be provided by reliable sources. There's no rush. Be patient. When we find out what caused his death, we'll add it. Dirroli (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Lastly, there's no reason why anyone would suspect that a death following a very serious illness that had lasted several weeks (which is explained in this Wikipedia article) would involve suicide, foul play, or trauma. The media just needs to sell papers and get eyeballs and thus create buzz and hysteria -- that's the only reason this is being bandied about. Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Seems pertinent to me. And if a Star Tribune reports it, it stops being primary. Grammar-wise, should be "The initial autopsy report indicated no signs of suicide, trauma or foul play." And only needs one citation. But it's good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Or wait, it's all wrong. The police said that. The medical examiner said she'll tell us later. Still, pretty relevant. Should also at least note there was an autopsy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support adding what the local police and medical officials now have announced on television about no signs of foul play or evidence of suicide. Many people are traumatized by this event. Soothing their feelings a bit will not hurt Wikipedia's dignity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Many people are traumatized"? His death is sad and surprising, but let's not go overboard. In any case, this is an encylopedia, not a memorial site. We are not here to comfort the distraught. We need to know what did cause his death, not what didn't. The media can report that stuff, not us. They need to fill time and space. Dirroli (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Feelings don't matter, but this has nothing to do with feelings. Or memorials. Just narrowing the circumstances of his death down. What something is is ideal, but what it's not is the next best thing. Useful for dispelling speculation. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: Two brand-new articles on the death of Prince are currently at AfD

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactions to the death of Prince
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Prince

-- Softlavender (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

I am requesting an edit to the portion that says Prince was hospitalized and then performed in Atlanta. That is incorrect. He performed at the Fox Theater in Atlanta on April 14th, 2016. After his last show, his plane made an emergency landing so that he could be hospitalized; that was on April 15th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraNade (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)‎

@SaraNade: I sense based on today's news that the correction will be made soon. Regardless, we need the specific text you wish inserted. Give us the sentence/sentences you want to put in and what you want removed, specifically. Katie^talk 18:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SaraNade, the information was in the article correctly; the wording was just a little unclear, so I've made it more precise. There's no reason to list a date for each single fact, but it was necessary to indicate that he did perform in Atlanta on the 14th, and then the next day he flew back and was hospitalized. I hope it sounds better to you now. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Citations needed

The whole 2000–07 section is tagged as unsourced. What shall we do with the section? Also, other portions are tagged as unsourced. --George Ho (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 23 April 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{requested move/dated}}

Prince (musician) → Prince (artist) – It is obvious that Prince is much more than just a musician Mlpearc (open channel) 17:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• No support from me Artist is ambiguous and non-specific. Implies he was a painter, a sculptor, someone in the visual arts. Yes, he was a musical artist, a musical genius, actually, and an amazing entertainer. Musician encompasses all of those. Artist is not appropriate, in my opinion. Unless any better Wiki-related reasoning is given other than a personal preference by the OP, I will stay on the side of No. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Sorry, that seems shallow, all you have to do is look at the article and see "what he does". Artist doesn't imply "physical output" Mlpearc (open channel) 18:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't insult. Personal feelings about Prince's talent aren't a good enough reason to change the article title. Do you have anything in the way of Wiki-reasoning to support this change? The man was a musical artist, perhaps that would be more appropriate than just "artist" on its own? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

That was not an insult, I apologize if it seemed that way to you. Lets not muddy this and move on, lets see what others have to say. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move primarily known as a musician. That's the most intuitive parenthetical disambiguation I can think of; the status quo seems to match bullet points 2, 3, and 5 of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA better than the proposed move target and is no worse than the proposed target at any of the others. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Musician suffices, the man's fashion sense and haute couture notwithstanding. kencf0618 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "Artist" is vague. He was primarily a musician. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Too general, and already implied by "musician". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This was discussed and resolved years ago. Musician is the key attribute to disambiguate from other Prince pages. — JFG ^talk 21:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article

After sufficient stability resumes after his death (maybe 2-3 months?), this article is good article material. TeacherA (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Worth a shot. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Love 4 One Another Charities

Love 4 One Another Charities should be folded into the article as appropriate. The organization currently appears to be either defunct or on hiatus, but this may very well change when Prince's estate is settled. The man had superb back office! kencf0618 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)