Talk:Michael Jackson

Domain Name Price Boom

"It has been overlooked that since Michael Jackson's Death there has been a boom in the sales of web domain names which carry tribute to the singer,a total of 1200 already. The day after his death auction prices on the popular web site 'ebay.com' reached a record of $10,000,000 for single web address' which bore tribute to Jackson. Domain names such as 'ilovemichaeljackson.net', 'www.MichaelJacksonIsAlwaysInMyHeart.com','michaeljackson4ever.info' and 'michaeljacksoninmemoriam.co.uk' (which is a pun upon the famous poem by Ernest Hemingway 'In Memoriam A.H.H') have now become extremely hard to come by and are now only available on the auction site ebay.com". Till now, the website is available http://www.MichaelJacksonIsAlwaysInMyHeart.com.

Indeed, his death has had an interesting impact on the Internet; see here for example. (I'm not convinced that "michaeljacksoninmemoriam.co.uk" is meant as an allusion and I'm not sure how you mistook Alfred Tennyson for Hemingway--but your overall point might very well be notable, if it can be referenced.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is having an effect on our little encyclopedia as well. Who knows, wikipedia may actually be read by some people.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the family has the rights to pull any sites with his name, especially if it's spelled out - Michael Jackson, but I could be wrong? If there are copyrights to his name, then I think they can. I pretty sure companies have that right to come in and take your site if you are using their company and/or brand names. This was a big issue a few years ago. NiteHacker (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be true - a lot of YouTube sites making reference to his involvement in various court cases involving child molestation and paedophilia are disappearing - I wonder if the owners of YouTube have been contacted by the Family or representatives over this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.76.161 (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Article opening line

"Michael Jackson is dead" seems like a very insensitive opening line. Should this be changed? Geoff (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) RIP, a true pop legend

Where??? There is NO mention of that line in the article... except that 'he was pronounced dead' which I don't find out of place. Need to be more specific! The tag box at the beginning of the article says...'a person who has recently died' - this is acceptable too so I DON'T find anything related to your statement. NiteHacker (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the change soon after posting the comment! Geoff (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Needs More Details and Citations on Discrepencies in Molestation Case

There are tons of holes in that case, which can be easily backed up with citations. But the article only mentions a few. For example there should be a lot more about the accuser's mother, who has said many times that her husband was trying to frame Jackson for child sex abuse. How about adding some direct quotes from her?

70.209.34.218 (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why there is a separate article on the subject which give further detail. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Mikaeel Jackson, not Michael Jackson

Michael Joseph Jackson convert Islam in 2007, new identity is Mikaeel Jackson, correctely please.

Needs a reliable source! Most sites say 'reportedly' and I don't think that qualifies. Besides, he is commonly known as Michael. If true, it could be noted in the page... but not the title of the page... otherwise, most users may not know this and would not be able to find the page!

Oh please, Wikipedia is intelligent enough to be able to have links and queries regarding Michael redirected to a page no matter the title. Aside from that, I agree that we need a reliable source. --cv

Still, I don't think the title name should be changed... as you say, with a reliable source, it can be included in the appropriate place in the article. Most people know him as Michael and probably would take offense to the name change of the article and a lot of people take offense to the Muslim religion... however, I know that doesn't matter to Wikipedia... as long as something has a reliable source and is appropriate, then it's allowed to be posted.NiteHacker (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree. The name is Mikaeel Jackson. Here are the sources. Please address and change the name or at least include his new name in the profile. Cat Stevens was also present. http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/11/21/Report-Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam/UPI-13801227284529/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222t3CJ9_3w -- (Abul Hasan comments on reports that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam) http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2008/11/21/2008-11-21_call_him_mikaeel_michael_jackson_reporte.html http://www.inquisitr.com/9175/michael-jackson-islam/ http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24684859-7484,00.html http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5162312/michael-jackson-becomes-a-muslim-report/ http://perezhilton.com/2008-11-21-michael-jackson-is-now-a-muslim

Here is also a video of how Jermaine Jackson wanted his brother (Michael Jackson) to convert to Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzFW1D1MII

Also in Jermaine's interview at the hospital he says "And Allah be with you Michael always." Which mean Michael Jackson did convert to Islam. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm

I doubt you will get them to change this... search the archives and see what the editors/admins say about him converting to Islam... it's in several archives! Use the search box in the Archives section at the top of this page. NiteHacker (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the anonymous reply above is correct — a claim that Jackson's name was changed to Mikaeel (either by his own reference, or legally) needs a reliable source. Changing the name of the page is the wrong approach, however, as to most readers, he was "Michael Jackson," not an alias. This can be noted in the "Personal life" or other appropriate section with the proper source. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]]

It actually doesn't matter what sources you have, he was known as Michael Jackson - had he been famous under another name, then fine - but he wasn't--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at all famous entries in wiki, the stage name is the one used for reference to the person. All other names are just listed as a point of interest. 68.150.46.249 (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Patent

The references to Jackson's patent (an image caption and a sentence in the body of the article) are absurd: they imply that the patent was issued for his leaning technique. In fact, it covers "a specially designed pair of shoes" in combination with modifications to a stage surface. Can someone please fix this (I can't edit). — Aldaron • T/C 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right. You can't patent a leaning stance. You can only patent an invention. 89.101.143.74 (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice type

This may disappear amidst all the recent activity, but I just noticed that under "Voice type" in the article's infobox, it says "Falsetto". There are two problems with this. First, MJ didn't only sing in falsetto; there are very few male vocalists who sing exclusively in falsetto, it's just not a natural singing style. Second, falsetto doesn't even appear in the voice types article, leading me to believe it's not technically a "voice type" (seems like more of a singing style to me). I couldn't say if he was a tenor or countertenor, but this should be fixed by someone who does know. - 68.146.211.84 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

May be good to bring that up in a few days. :-) wadester16 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. He was actually a countertenor/tenor. Countertenors often sing in a falsetto style, but as you point out, falsetto is not a true voice type. Maybe this can get updated once all of the frenzy abates. Mistress of Awesome (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can already see the 3RR wars on this alone. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

is there a SOURCE that says he is a contertenor/tenor? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

His voice is that of a countertenor (being a countertenor myself). Countertenors are men with voices that normally sound like a female (without trying to or resorting to falsetto). A countertenor can be easily detected by listening to their normal speaking voice. Even if he sings falsetto on some parts (to make the sound lighter), he did hit some notes on his modal voice.

A common misconception about countertenor is that every countertenor sings in falsetto. I am classically trained and I use my full voice when singing. Falsetto might be needed in some songs parts either to add drama or to tone down volume (this is where I'm asked to use it).

And note, falsetto is NOT a voice type. It is a term used to describe how someone sings (in falsetto's case, using head tone). Everyone can sing in falsetto but not everyone is a countertenor. ~~KCQuest

Having written a paper on voice types and vocal styles, I can confirm that falsetto is not a voice type, but rather a style used to extend the top range in a way that produces a different sound that is audibly different from the "full voice". While he does use falsetto in many songs, it is not his voice type, and I agree that he would be most appropriately classified as a counter-tenor. As the original anon. poster of this talk subject is not able to edit the page, I would be more than happy to amend this in the article, provided that there is a consensus. If one is not reached, I'll attempt to find a source online to reference when making a change. So, please provide your thoughts on the matter :) Chrisch^Talk 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Voice type currently says "Falsetto, Tenor". As others have correctly pointed out, falsetto is a vocal technique not a classification of voice type (even for those singers who perform almost exclusively in falsetto, and Michael Jackson does not fall into that category). Michael Jackson did have a high natural tessitura, and it's not always obvious where his falsetto starts and stops. His unusually high speaking voice would suggest he may have been a natural countertenor. I don't think the description "tenor" could be in any way controversial, and he was at least a high tenor if not a true countertenor. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur that he was a countertenor, in my opinion. His range extended to near the top of the treble clef. Although his upper range didn't extend as far as that of Freddie Mercury or Bobby McFerrin, his upper range extended particularly high for a male voice. EnglishHornDude (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Death" section revisions

On the morning of June 25, 2009, Jackson reportedly collapsed at a rented home in west Los Angeles. Local fire department paramedics responded to a 911 call at 12:21 pm local (Pacific) time[185] and arrived at 12:30 pm. Jackson was reportedly not breathing and CPR was quickly performed. He was reported to have just received a shot of demarol from his doctor.[186] He fell into a coma(wikilink) and died shortly after being rushed to UCLA Medical Center at around 2:26 local time.[188][187] The cause of death is reported to be cardiac arrest.[186] Although there is no evidence of criminality, Los Angeles Police Department detectives have opened an investigation into his death.[189] An autopsy is said to be scheduled for Friday, June 26, 2009.[188]

Some rephrasing. TechOutsider (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That flows much better :-) ZooFari 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I included the rented home part. I think including the LAFD is useful though. Discuss; I'll change if necessary. wadester16 02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I dispute it... it's STILL not known as to how he was found and whether he was in a coma and where he died at and there is NO reliable sources to really back this up yet... is there? Quoting different media sources does NOT make it correct. NEED to wait til father (and/or family) make an official statement! PLEASE fix! NiteHacker (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I would like to see what the Sheriff has to say about whether the rented property had a full gas inspection by a Corgi Registered Company? He may have died of Carbon Monoxide poisoning, in which case the Landlord is responsible for a LOT of grief worldwide right now, as well as ruining the Tour.79.77.76.161 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)bubbleboy79.77.76.161 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is regular practice to quote news sources by using the work "reportedly". Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If it is being reported by reliable sources, then it is wiki-worthy. wadester16 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed sentence change

Under the heading "1958-1975 Early life and The Jackson 5", it states Jackson was physically and mentally abused by his father... A suggestion would be to change that to "Jackson and his siblings were physically and mentally abused by their father... This would be so the reader doesn't leave this Wikipedia article thinking that only Michael was abused. In some abusive households it is true that one child may suffer but Joesph was equally firm and abusive with all his children. It's important a reader who doesn't know this won't leave with a misinterpretation of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Source? wadester16 02:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I just edit conflict with you. Dam, you beat me! ZooFari 02:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe his source are the persons being brought onto talk shows by networks such as MSNBC and CNN who are noting that Jackson was abused physically and mentally. Whether or not they stated his siblings were abused, I cannot recall. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

1. Change "Although there is no evidence of criminality, Los Angeles Police Department detectives have opened an investigation into his death" to "Los Angeles Police Department homicide and robbery division detectives attended the scene as a matter of routine in high profile death cases"
2. Add the fact his body has been transported by helicopter from UCLA to the LA County coroner's office
3. Add the date and age of death in a sentence to the end of the lede

MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

About the second thing you listed: do you have a source to back it up? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My responses:

1. Source please (specifically for "LAPD homicide and robbery division).
2. Source please.
3.  Done

Thanks, wadester16 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The dates are in the infobox. ZooFari 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO the date should no be the last sentence for the lead. It seems awkward to go from an introduction to a sudden "surprise". ZooFari 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen either. The date of death is already in the lead (in parentheses). It can be re-added to lead when the cause of death has been established in the post-mortem when we have something substantial to say.TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources:

1. A spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department said the robbery and homicide team was investigating Jackson's death because of its "high profile" but warned reporters not to read anything into this The 'spokesman' is actually one Lt. Greg Strenk of the LAPD speaking live on TV
2. Michael Jackson's body has been transported away from UCLA medical centre by helicopter for an autopsy report by the coroner's office.

MickMacNee (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Sky News and I'd prefer a written source to the BBC video. wadester16 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. See Sky News. 2. It is a written source, it is the caption to the video. MickMacNee (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sky News update  Done. Still want a legitimate written source (article) for the helicopter. I know it happened, but there needs to be a legitimate article, mainly b/c they must exist. wadester16 03:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Legitimate? Are you suggesting the written text is illegitimate? On what basis? MickMacNee (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TV footage showed a rescue helicopter flying the star's body to a waiting ambulance. - The Guardian. I cannot believe that you have just forced me to waste 20 minutes to find that. This article needs to be un-protected, now. MickMacNee (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When you click on a source to verify the information you read, do you really want to go through a video, which at some point (that you don't know) verifies the statement? I know this was a short video, but where's the stopping point? Five minutes? 10 minutes? It's just reasonable. And like I said, I knew there'd be sources out there; it was your choice to search. wadester16 05:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jackson had his third rhinoplasty shortly afterward and grew self conscious about his appearance."

Is 'afterward' rather than 'afterwards' a typo or a feature of US English? TerriersFan (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Typo. 'afterwards' is the correct word. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK; I'll make the change as a discussed, non-controversial edit. TerriersFan (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a typo, it's a feature of American English; see American and British English differences#Word derivation and compounds. However "afterwards" is common in America and more internationally acceptable, so there's no point in changing it back. Graham87 05:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody needs to say it...

Okay, I'm just gonna come out and say it because somebody needs to. When somebody famous dies, especially somebody world-famous and recognizable (and even loved) by literally billions of people, the information that is presented here at Wikipedia has to be correct per the verifiable, reliable sources that are cited. It's not just about our community or our policies, it's about our readers, who come here with at least a reasonable expectation that our "reporting" of the incident will be correct, or as correct as reports we cite can be. The bouncing back and forth between having a death section, not having a death section, reporting the same thing in three sections, etc, is unnecessary and disruptive. That's the main reason this is fully protected. I am here, and am willing to update the page, as I have been; a simple request (with source!) is all that's needed for your update to be made. Right now, the article is correct per its sources, which are all notable (MSNBC, Reuters, CNN, etc). This is essentially a case of WP:IAR because it's such a big event. It's a necessity, otherwise this could turn into another Ted Kennedy/Robert Byrd report. This will all cool down by tomorrow, but for now, it needs to be correct and not unreliable. Let the crucifying begin. :-) wadester16 02:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got my support in this. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

i'm with wadester, wikipedia should be about correct information over fast information. there's more than enough sites out there pumping out rumor and blatant mything to be the first people with the story, so i fully support the admins sitting on it until a genuine confrimation.78.16.106.3 (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with what you said here and previously and I withdraw my request and I see what you are saying now and agree with what was posted... although, it is 'reportedly' and, thus, may be inaccurate at this point. NiteHacker (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

there aint no deadline so lock it until the news dies down and well know which are the best sources to use and what information is important to put in... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical insulated pomposity and one reason why many of us don't really edit much anymore. Wikipedia is NOT an considered an acceptable source by academics and NEVER will be. It is a pop encyclopedia which needs fact checking anyway. The passage of time proves this is another case of going to absurd lengths of denial about current news for naught and if the circus above does anything it shows that. Nothing is going to change but somebody needs to say it--Dseer (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nothing to with Wikipedia, you should never use any encylopedia as a source, but rather use the secondary sources which are used in those encylopedia. On that basis Wikipedia is as reliable as any other. John Hayes^talk 11:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson converted to Islam

I think we should add that he converted to Islam.

If anything, the wording of this claim should say "Although he never confirmed it publicly, there are some reports that Michael converted to Islam later in life, although dispute remains around this claim." Clearly, since there are several sections on the discussion page debating whether sources on this item are reliable, this claim is under debate. This doesn't mean it can't be true, but it does mean that there is legetimate debate around the subject, and I think the article should acknowledge this, instead of just claiming it as fact, which it may not be.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3494296/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam-and-changes-name-to-Mikaeel.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm

If I'm not mistaken, these are all rags; yes even the post. wadester16 02:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Every single one of those articles is a tabloid. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm struck by the ignorance of someone calling the Telegraph, Britain's man broadsheet, a tabloid

e.g. Telegraph main headline: "Michael Jackson dead at 50: did drugs kill the King of Pop? Michael Jackson's death from a cardiac arrest was probably the result of drug abuse, said a family lawyer" - are we really expecting a lawyer to tell us why he died?

More and more sources are saying it was due to drugs. Right now, they are saying Demorol which would cause his breathing to stop and followed by cardiac arrest. This would make sense! However, we have to wait on the toxicology report to confirm this. It may be a combination of several drugs as it's being reported that he was on more than one! NiteHacker (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

i found another youtube video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q_RoK_wrDw

And what about the Israeli Haaretz : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1039906.html Muslim2010 (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jermaine Jackson said in the press conference today "may Allah be with you always Michael" I think his conversion should be added

That's a clean assumption. Jermaine Jackson may be a convert to Islam but that doesn't necessarily mean Michael was Muslim. I'm not Muslim but I return the greeting of those I know of the muslim faith who would address me with "Asalam Alakum" by addressing them with "Wa-Aleikum Asalam". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, when are we going to add such an important part of his life, such as his faith in his biography. It is funny that something as confirmed as his conversion, with headlines across the globe is still being questioned. His own brother, confirms, the world newspapers confirm it. Im not sure what else we are waiting for, if that isn't sufficient, I don't know what else we need. I can't think of any reason why this isn't in his profile except for the fact that people don't want it there.

read this discussion. Several editors and administrators agreed these reports are inconclusive due to the fact they are all reprints of The Sun, which is a tabloid, and are to be excluded. Also: New York Daily news Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan, took the opportunity to trash a British press report that Jackson has become a Muslim. "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue," McMillan told reporters. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said earlier, he converted and the name is Mikaeel Jackson. Here are the sources.

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/11/21/Report-Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam/UPI-13801227284529/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=222t3CJ9_3w -- (Abul Hasan comments on reports that Michael Jackson has converted to Islam) http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/2008/11/21/2008-11-21_call_him_mikaeel_michael_jackson_reporte.html http://www.inquisitr.com/9175/michael-jackson-islam/ http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24684859-7484,00.html http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5162312/michael-jackson-becomes-a-muslim-report/

Here is also a video of how Jermaine Jackson wanted his brother (Michael Jackson) to convert to Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzFW1D1MII

Also in Jermaine's interview at the hospital he says "And Allah be with you Michael always." Which mean Michael Jackson did convert to Islam. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm

Two separate threads on same topic going on here... see Mikaeel Jackson, not Michael Jackson above. Also before posting, search the archives for previous or past responses to this same topic! NiteHacker (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, at least 3, see Religion below... NOT counting the ones in the archives! NiteHacker (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

4 - Islam (Please refrence this in the article) - There is enough proof and Video proof from BBC! NiteHacker (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

750 million album sales??

The lead claims he has sold 750 million albums worldwide. A quick add up here puts the sales of his top 5 selling albums at around the 200 million mark. Where did the other half billion sales come from? Is the statement even remotely supportable? --LiamE (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the source used in the article (#194, I think). Not sure what to tell you. wadester16 03:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If thats the best source for it the claim should be removed. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources is wiki policy. That is a big claim and the source reads as promo information rather than an audited in depth look at his album sales. By my estimation going by the figures in that article his other 9 albums other than Thriller would have had to average close to 72 million in sales each. Quite simply, they havnt sold anything like that much. --LiamE (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with CBS News? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It should probably be left... it might be right! Here's ANOTHER source that says it... [www.eonline.com/uberblog/b131173_michael_jackson_pops_thrilling_king.html]

"Jackson, whose lifetime of hits sold more than 750 million albums worldwide..." NiteHacker (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated falsehoods are still false. It simply isnt true. His top 5 selling albums have sold about 200 million in total according to reliable sources. There is no way his lesser selling 5 albums sold 550 million now is there? Has it not occured to you that the writer of that probably used this article as a source and didn't check the facts? I've checked the facts. Its wrong, plain and simple. As for the logic of "It should probably be left... it might be right" all I can say is my palm met my face when I read that. --LiamE (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So you pretty much did WP:OR and as a result, you are now claiming the page should be modified to reflect your OR. CBS News is a verifiable, and reputable resource and likewise, the information is correct. Especially considering it has been corroborated by other sources such as USA Today. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you dont know what OR is. Original research is not pointing out that an extravagent claim made by several sources that may well be quoting from each other does not tally up with sources that are more reliable. The sales figures for his albums are well known and have many sources to back them up here. To have an extravagant claim in the lead using sources that are certainly no authourities on record sales to back it up does the article a huge disservice. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources is wiki policy, not something that can be taken or left at will. That is an exceptional claim, the sources are anything but exceptional. I can easily find you quotes that "billions" watched Nigel Benn fight Chris Eubank, sources as good as the ones for this claim, but it doesn't make it true. The 750 million sales figure is sourced but as those sources fly in the face of more reliable sources on the subject the claim is certainly not suitable for the lead of an article and if used at all should be tempered by the more conservative estimates of sales from the more reliable sources. --LiamE (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

His personal website says that he sold 750 million records: here 24.79.144.127 (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• correction: there is a difference between the term "albums" and "records/units" 750 million is usually attributed to albums, singles, dvds, music videos, cassette taps, lps etc. not solely album sales. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of interest to add to this conversation - http://www.mjjcharts.com/J5globalalbums.htm - it uses data from RIAA, UK and other certified sales and USA Soundscan (?) NiteHacker (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The 750 million total sales at least looks reasonable. I suspect that figure somehow got tanslated into 750 million albums and then requoted. As you can see here his actual album sales are a fraction of the 750 million figure. --LiamE (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not claiming http://www.mjjcharts.com/index.html as a reliable source? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

They are counting ALL the albums from the time he started, Jackson 5 & Jacksons... does NOT mention Michael Jackson by himself? But according to a Sony website (?)... Chairman/CEO of Sony/ATV Music estimated his all-time sales to be 750 million records worldwide. I am NOT using it as a source, I said they collected the information from certified sales and USA Soundscan. Also, don't you think Sony can be trusted? NiteHacker (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there isnt a single source that breaks down his album sales that gives a figure over even 300 million (including work with the family) and Sony/michaeljackson.com say the 750 million figure is for records not albums I consider the discussion pretty much over. --LiamE (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about sourcing information (whether it's right or wrong), but I will say that he never sold 750 million records.I'm not expecting anything to get changed - but I doubt he even sold half that. Break down the figures - and go figure. These claims are made up and totally inaccurate.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Random busy body: When totalling up his record sales, are you including the sales that he made as Jackson Five?

NO need to be calling names, etc, here...

Also, what's the difference, albums or records, etc... it's all the same to me! As I said, Sony, or a representative (Chairman/CEO), used this figure too and I think it's probably based on albums and singles and maybe videos. We need a better source to their statement. For the meantime, why not call it units or just say 750 million in sales and make a footnote such as 'This figure may be based on worldwide sales and could be a combination of albums, records, singles, tapes, video, etc. At the moment, it's not known what this figure is based on and there's no breakdown of his sales. Also, this figure seems to be based on his lifetime.' Or something to this effect. I think it's probably accurate, as far as sales, and it's notable and impressive to leave it in the article as it enhances his achievements. There are probably a few sources you could base this on... someone needs to do an extensive research on this and then include the sources in the article. This should settle this matter... I DON'T see why this is such a BIG issue anyways! BTW, It was on their site, temporarily... it's changed over to a tribute site now... http://www.michaeljackson.com/ NiteHacker (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1986–1990: Tabloids, appearance, Bad, autobiography and films

This section appears to be very subjective. The author draws conclusions and take sides on a issue that is so much uncertain. The statement: "The treatments he used for his condition further lighten his skin tone, and, with the application of pancake makeup to even out blotches, he could appear very pale" is followed by others arguing that Michael skin condition was a result of skin condition. This has never been proved so I suggest the following to be added:

"But the controversy surrounding his health condition continued up to may 2009 when Michael Jackson's official spokesperson, Dr. Tohme, in an effort to silence rumors declared that he was not suffering from any skin condition at all. This strengthened the argument that Michael Jackson pale appearance was a result of intentional bleaching of the skin "

Possible addition

This source states that Jermaine said that Michael's physician was with him at the time he collapsed in his home and tried to resuscitate him before paramedics arrived. Can anybody corroborate that with another source? That seems important (and, indeed, odd). wadester16 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, as noted above this [5] source says the same thing... but it also says there wasnt a doctor there to pronounce him dead so the coroner had to investigate his death?? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

Minor? Move Death section from below the musical style stuff to a H3 header in the H2 Biography section. Rationale: His birth is considered part of his 'Biography', so for simple chronological readability, his death should be too. MickMacNee (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The convention in biographies is to keep the death section separate. wadester16 03:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the "Jackson died on June 25, 2009 at the age of 50." statement in the intro removed. It adds nothing. The date of death is already there. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. wadester16 03:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's a common practice. This "intro" is called a lead for a reason.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then move it to a H2 section below the biography. MickMacNee (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

KittyKAY4's one request does not amount to "multiple requests to remove", the article's lead is suppose to be a summery, so it should be reverted back.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See here; I don't make things up. But I agree, the wording was bad. Propose some better wording? Then I'll include it. wadester16 04:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable enough, and after some verbal swordplay, I came up with this: "Michael Joseph Jackson lived to the age of 50; he passed away on the 25th of June, 2009.".--MahaPanta (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but his full name is already mentioned in the first line. No need to really ever use it again, no? wadester16 04:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to be as formal as possible, how's this then:"Mr. Jackson lived to the age of 50; he passed away on the 25th of June, 2009."?--MahaPanta (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

i dont think we need to have the date of his death mentioned in the lede... its NOT that important... 5 years from now do you think that information would still be important enough to be in the lede? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to be formal by saying 'Mr' - after the first instance it becomes just 'Jackson' - unless differenciating between him and his brothers.

Edit protection

In numerous places it has been agreed that edit protection should be lowered to semi. Please do it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% again. I hate admins trying to play gatekeeper to an article because two people vandalized it. Instead of taking actions against the vandals, it was deemed by some to just lock it down completely Corpx (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins make decisions for the community when what was needed was consensus.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Open the floodgates. I do want to point out though, that just because we're admins doesn't mean good faith shouldn't still be assumed. Please see this rationale. It was a necessity. Will keep an eye here for another hour or so to see how things go. wadester16 04:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know there's a touch of "Devil's Addvocate" in this, but what does this full protection reflect on the good faith of users? Almost all of the user submissions was in good faith, and what about the faith in users reverting vandalism. I know I undid a fair share of vandalism while I could.--MahaPanta (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiser eyes have made a decision, are you planning on policing every edit? There is no need to unprotect the article - such a high level of edits would be near impossible to monitor and it is important to remain factually accurate on extremely high visibility articles like this one. I endorse the protection. Matty (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I say give it a chance. It's past midnight on the east coast and after 10 in LA. Possibly a mistake, but a correctable one. wadester16 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed in the protecting admins complete lack of judgement.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

High level of edits does not mean that an article should be locked down for edits by admins only. If the high level of edits were vandal edits, I'd agree with you, but only a very small percentage of the edits were of a vandal nature. If a registered user engages in vandalism, then he/she should be warned and then blocked accordingly. Locking down the article is not the solution Corpx (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Warn and block the harmful registered users and semi-unprotect the page. You'll still keep new accounts and IP editors away.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of us have been reverting vandalism for quite a while. We know what to look for. You have tought us well Master Yoda, now we must go forth and edit wisely.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Sky Attacker - more discrimination against IP editors? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Death section

'The entertainment site TMZ.com reported at 2:20 p.m. PDT that: "We're told when paramedics arrived Jackson had no pulse and they never got a pulse back."'

source = http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10273277-93.html

BTW, you think Wikipedia has mistakes... how about this one, from the same site...

'He was "prounced" dead at 2:26 p.m., officials said.'

I know it may not be funny at this moment, if it isn't... sorry.NiteHacker (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, sorry, TMZ is not a reliable source, nor is a source citing TMZ. wadester16 04:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that seems to contradictory to what you said earlier! TMZ and CNet are media sites just like the others... they are news sites and TMZ is an entertainment news site... are you saying only the news media sites are reliable sources? NiteHacker (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When did I say that TMZ was reliable? CNet, maybe, but when they openly cite TMZ, then no, especially when all the mainstream news sites are covering this in depth. wadester16 04:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ is no better than The National Enquirer. Both are over glorified tabloids. Neither should be taken as a verifiable source. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The death needs to be written in prose in the lead section

A simple end date after his name is not acceptable for detailing the fact he has just died as a summary of this article. Read WP:LEDE. The brackets, much like an infobox, are additional to the article text, they do not replace it. MickMacNee (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the LEDE is like an abstract, that is why I suggested:"Mr. Jackson lived to the age of 50; he passed away on the 25th of June, 2009." above.--MahaPanta (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Have at it. Check out other bios to see how they do it. Most mention the cause. wadester16 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to meantion too many details since it is only an abstract.--MahaPanta (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you removed "the", I had to add "th", and I rearranged it to flow better.--MahaPanta (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit Joseph

Was Michael's middle name based on the father's name Joe (Joseph)?

Is this noteworthy?

If so, there's no mention in the article about it. NiteHacker (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a family source that directly states the connection between the middle name "Joseph" and his father. I would assume that it might be in either his autobiagrpahy Moon Walk (I tried to hyperlink to the article on the book, but the link wasn't working) or one of the autobigraphical books written by Katherine Jackson. If I had to guess, I would assume that this was a a naming convention within the Jackson family, but a guess doesn't do much for verifiability. As for notability, I don't personally think its that notable. Unless there was a major reason for the name being given to him. To summerize, as in Isaac Asimov "What's in a name?" Wolfpeaceful (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For those still editing the lead:

The lead is an abstract/summary of the article. It does not matter how many times his death is meantioned elsewhere, the lead must be able to stand alone. It's entire purpose is so that someone browsing articles can read it instead of the entire article. Then if they want to know more, they can read the rest of the article. That also means anything mentioned in it should be considered the first time it is mentioned. We are also suppose to refrain from using words like died.--MahaPanta (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your last statement: no, we're not. Please see WP:AVOID#Death and dying. Nufy8 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going on what wadester16 said in Talk:Michael_Jackson#Edit_request_3.--MahaPanta (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure when I said that either. wadester16 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was reffering to Talk:Michael_Jackson#Edit_request_3, that's what I thought you said.--MahaPanta (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"The word "died" is religiously neutral, and neither crude nor vulgar." - according to the page above. NiteHacker (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was, refer to the section I previously linked to ( Talk:Michael_Jackson#Edit_request_3 ). I had origionally used died and an admin asked me to reword it. I personally don't care either way.--MahaPanta (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no reference to the word "died", only the general wording (almost disappointing conciseness) of my original wording. No big deal though; it's all figured out. wadester16 05:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

odd edit note

if you're lucky enough (like me) not to be an admin, the note you get when you edit the page seems a bit odd... it says something like 'Admins! Yes You! Don't edit this! - I figure someone would know how to fix that up? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For reals? But what about WP:IAR? ;) Can the admins editing the page gain consensus for their edits before editing a fully protected page? Please? Honestly I've been here more than a year and have never seen such behaviour before. 05:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Auntie E (talk)

Yea, not sure why it did that; seems to be fixed now. When editing a fully protected article, the background of the text box is pink though. wadester16 05:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This was unfortunate, but it should be all right now. Dekimasuよ! 06:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ADL controversy - They Don't Care About Us.

I've reinstated material wrongly deleted about the ADL controversy over the song "They don't Care About Us".VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is very misleading: "The ADL complained and Jackson responded by saying he would re-record the lyrics before the album went into production. However the ADL's press release charged that Jackson had performed the song live and included the lyrics in question during the live performance." This implies that the song was never released with the infamous lyrics, when in fact those were present in an entire first run of the album- millions of copies were sold (including my own) before the controversy arose.

Age of entry to professional career

Perhaps there is a problem with the age listed in the introduction. Other articles in the encyclopedia state he began in the Jackson 5 at the age of 8. 76.191.132.155 (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Can someone please add Michael Jackson's religion to the article, there is nothing about it. Please do not ignore this, it will be added sooner or later, do not try to manipulate the article. Truth first.

no, verifiability first... please find a recent reliable source staying his religion or change of religion... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He converted to Islam in November 2008 and confirmed it. His brother Jermaine and his sister have been Muslim for a long time.

His brother said may Allah be with you always94.97.104.168 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm Listen to the end of the clip where Jermaine says "May Allah be wth you". As he respects his religion he says "May Allah be with you".

Please add that there is possibility that Michael Jackson was a Muslim, there are also other sources that claims it, if you google it you will see that other newspapers have written it, and it's possible for him to have become Muslim, since he has been living in the Middle-East and gotten close to the Muslim culture.

This article looks like a record company wrote it. Please add it or this article will be marked as unilateral/biased. This reminds me of the Scientology section...

---

Don't be absurd. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that Michael was Muslim, and the fact that a couple of his siblings converted to it (from Jehovah's Witnesses, if I remember correctly) has no bearing on Michael's own beliefs. Did anyone ever snap a picture of MJ praying to Mecca? Did he ever say he was Islamic, or seem to abide by any of the strictures? No.

Even if someone took a picture, that proves nothing (and as a primary source can't be used by Wikipedia anyway). Someone can pretend to be praying for many reasons (acting, a joke, sometimes used at sports by supporters etc.). Just to point out I agree with you, but to clarify to others. John Hayes^talk 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was being a bit facetious. Similarly, I would say that if Michael ever *had* become Islamic, his brother Jermaine would have shouted it from the roof-tops. In interviews Jermaine has said he wished Michael would convert, so if he managed it, he'd have been holding press conferences:-) But that's not evidence. http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/27346/jermaine-jackson-wants-to-convert

--Verifiability is essential. And it is incorrect to assume that simply because his brother converted to Islam, that he did also. E.g. My sister is Christian, and I am Wiccan. She says "God Bless You" to me, but does that make me Christian? No it does not. And also, yes, a picture would be relatively meaningless. The photo would only verify the visual medium, but not fully explain what it is taking place in the picture. E.g. I attend church sometimes with my friends, out of respect. If someone took a photo of me reading a Bible in a church, they might assume (incorrectly) that I was Christian. There might even be a caption included "wolfpeaceful converts to Christianity." But this would be wrong. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

odd placement of ==death== section

shouldnt ==death== be further down? like before the ==legacy and influence== section instead of before ==musical style and performance==? i tried to move it but one too many edit conflicts. i dont deal well with frustration. badmachine (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

merged into main bio section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

i think it should have its own section like before, i only thought it was too far up in the article. badmachine (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo!!

Should it not be time to actually install a reputable, up-to-date photo? One which actually shows what Michael Jackson looked like before he died? Crazy Eddy (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing good at commons:Category:Michael Jackson. This is up for deletion, unfortunately and a search at Flickr provides literally nothing. wadester16 05:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I too checked Flickr, nothing usable, and the only ones that are possible legitimately free are from... 1988 (and not suitable). :-/ --Falcorian ^(talk) 06:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but at the This Is It announcement in London, if you look at the coverage of the event, there are dozens of people with digital cameras. It seems impossible that not one person managed to take a photo and not upload it to Flikr. Groan. Crazy Eddy (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be appropriate to place a relevant template at the top of the article - it will be receiving a great many views, including the UK (where the aforementioned cameras were) - that might generate a few results. I too have searched Creative Commons and found nothing but posters of the o2 concerts. A reasonable template might be {{reqphoto}} Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A Separate Page

We can discuss this when the facts of the case are clearer, but at this point it remains uncertain whether Jackson's death will warrant an article in the future, so there's no need to have a debate. Dekimasuよ! 07:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, "it remains uncertain" whether his death will warrant a future article? There is plenty of controversy already less than 48 hours later. Merlin1935 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Merlin

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.

---

In a few days I suggest that the death of Michael Jackson should receive a page of it's own. This event is incredibly immense. Here are some examples: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, - Mdriver1981 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't executed or assassinated: he died of cardiac arrest; hardly worthy of an entire article. We'll see what comes of the autopsy and what type of spectacle the funeral turns out to be, but at present his death in itself doesn't really require more than the few lines it warrants in the article about his life. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nit to pick: All your examples are world leaders, not pop stars. This is not commentary on you proposal, just your examples. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It is merly a suggestion. The examples are of incredibly famous deaths. Although, Ford's death was not that big, but for some reason people decided to make a separate page on it. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as an example, MJ is often compared to Elvis. There is no "Death of Elvis Presley" article although there was significantly more controversy surrounding his death. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am trying to treat this as a forum, but... his death may very well be controversial, like Elvis's. If Jackson died as a result of medications or drug addictions we can all expect this event to explode. Elvis's death preceded the 24 hour news channels which is probably a factor in why that event has no page of it's own.Mdriver1981 (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a possibility, but it's not really something that needs to be speculated about at this point on this already busy talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 06:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. I am making an "if" IF the funeral and autopsy cause more news. Here is another page example. - Mdriver1981 (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is another counterexample: death of Ayrton Senna. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet... Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Death of Neda Agha-Soltan - Mdriver1981 (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm sure that there are many more examples to be found. So what? How does this conversation help to make this article better? What good does it do on this page at this time to discuss what might happen in a few days? --Onorem♠Dil 06:56, 26 June 2009 (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.

When Coroners' report is available, it will list all the drugs found in the toxicology report - we've already had them printed in the UK, but unconfirmed. A cursory glance of this list does tend to indicate he would have been hopelessly addicted to them - highly unsafe co-administrations - will post a list along with Pharmacological information on side effects when I can, as I think this will be of wide interest, but once you have a cause of death, dont see you need anything more, apart from coverage of funral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.76.161 (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What then is the difference between Jackson's death and those of others who got separate pages? One would think that a separate Wikipedia page is not necessarily a badge of honor, but a functional necessity due to the overwhelming nature of the event and the sheer amount of interest it has generated worldwide. Is that not the Wikipedia standard? This event is about on the same level as the death of Princess Diana which has a separate page. Merlin1935 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Merlin

A New Page On His Death Is Necessary

As suggested elsewhere on this discussion page, a new separate page on his death is absolutely necessary. There are separate pages on the death of huge personalities such as American Presidents - Reagan, Ford, Kennedy; and pop icons such as Buddy Holy. Even the Iranian girl "Neda" has a death page, although her fame arose ONLY as a result of her death.

Being an American president or world leader should not be the only qualification for a separate page; rather, it should be based on the monumental impact of the death event, the surrounding circumstances of death (as in Neda's case) and the reach of the individual's influence on popular culture while alive. These points cannot be disputed in the case of Michael Jackson, and Wikipedia already has precedents as mentioned.

Also, the fact that this forum has generated so much discussion on his death is another pointer to the need for a separate page on Jackson's death. It is immaterial that the dust is yet to settle on this monumental occurrence, as updates can be entered as events unfold. Merlin1935 (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Merlin

Michael Jackson Broke MTV Color Barrier

Michael Jackson Broke MTV Color Barrier

More importantly, Jackson figuratively shattered the race barrier in popular culture, showing that an African-American performer could be the biggest crossover star in the world. He also single-handedly integrated MTV, which had blocked playing black artists in its regular rotation until Columbia Records threatened to pull all its videos from the channel unless they played Jackson's "Billie Jean." When MTV played it, the iconic "Billie Jean" video became an instant success, kicking the door open for a host of African-American artists, including Prince.

"[MTV] said they don't play [black artists]," Jackson told Ebony last year. "It broke my heart, but at the same time it lit something. I was saying to myself, 'I have to do something where they . . . I just refuse to be ignored."

Aside from breaking the color barrier, the "Billie Jean" video also introduced music video as an art form. Previously, music videos consisted mainly of artists on stage playing and singing to the video camera. "Billie Jean", "Thriller", et al, changed music videos into mini movie production. Merlin1935 (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Merlin

Grammar suggestion

"a suspected heart attack or cardiac arrest" is better than "a suspected cardiac arrest or heart attack" as "cardiac arrest" shouldn't take an article and "an X or Y" can mean "a Y or an X"/"Y or an X" --Bogger (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit: Michael Jackson's death

Respectfully request the deletion of the detail regarding Michael Jackson's coma state. A person is generally not regarded to be in a coma if he or she is in a state of full cardiac arrest. From the news report and the LAFD 9-1-1 dispatch to Rescue/Engine 71, Michael Jackson had a respiratory arrest (he stopped breathing) which eventually caused his heart to stop. Resuscitative efforts such as CPR, intubation, defibrillation, and cardioactive drugs such as epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, atropine, and amiodarone are artificial methods to try and trigger the heart to start back up. A person whose heart is not pumping on its own is clinically dead. A coma, on the other hand, is a condition in which a person is in deep unconsciousness due to brain insult or injury.

Had the LAFD paramedics restored a pulse on scene, (it took them 9 minutes to get on scene) in most likelihood, Michael Jackson would have had extensive brain injury perhaps leaving him in a vegetative state. According to the American Heart Association, a person's chances of surviving a cardiac arrest significantly diminishes with each minute that passes without CPR AND defibrillation. At 9 minutes, his chances of survival were well into the single digits. Brain tissue begins to die off after 4 minutes without oxygen.

There were a flurry of reports from the time the incident was reported to the time he was pronounced dead from various news sources, of which the veracity could not be verified. As it stood, a team of emergency physicians and cardiologists attempted for over an hour to restart his heart to no avail. A coma would have been a bitter victory.

This is a fair point, but the article is based on news reports that emerged at the time. The article will no doubt be modified in the future, but we are still waiting for the autopsy report at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are reports that he was NOT breathing when help arrived and attempts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful.

So, I agree and have been trying to get someone to change this... but to NO avail! According to the father, he suffered a cardiac arrest and never recovered. So if he was not breathing and attempts to resuscitate him failed... he NEVER was in a coma! NiteHacker (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is likely that he was in a coma after his heart was restarted. Although it is correct, it is almost irrelevant information to say that he was in a coma. If he was in cardiac arrest when the paramedics arrived, then it's what happened before the arrest, not after it, that matters. Also, you don't diagnose 'vegetative state' until the person's been like that for weeks at least, probably months. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not read any source that claims Jackson was revived. As I understand, MJ likely suffered narcotic induced respiratory arrest and subsequent pulseless electrical activity. He was dead on the scene. This is clearly not a coma state, but some sources (ie LA Times) have stated in the same sentence that he was in a coma and not breathing in cardiac arrest - a clear semantic mistake.Robotk (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"At 9 minutes, his chances of survival were well into the single digits. Brain tissue begins to die off after 4 minutes without oxygen." Isn't it possible to have put him on a breathing machine which would, thus, have provided the oxygen he needed? Otherwise, why would the doctors try for one hour to revive him? NiteHacker (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He would not be placed on a ventilator unless he was revived. Part of CPR is oxygen delivery, typically through bag mask ventilation, but MJ was likely in PEA and was not having functional cardiac activity. Robotk (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sales stats

In the opening section: "Referred to as the "King of Pop" in subsequent years, four of his solo studio albums are among the world's best-selling records: Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995), while his 1982 Thriller is the world's best-selling record of all time." strangely has no references and being the best-selling puts Thriller "among among the world's best-selling records" so it should read:

"Referred to as the "King of Pop" in subsequent years, his 1982 Thriller is the world's best-selling record of all time and four other solo studio albums are also among the world's best-selling records: Off the Wall (1979), Bad (1987), Dangerous (1991) and HIStory (1995)."--08:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as 'King of Pop' Sony's http://www.michaeljackson.com says he was! Thriller *IS* an all-time top seller and there are many sources that mention it... RIAA and Billboard, at the least... the others, I don't know? NiteHacker (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source to prove the album sales...

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=tblTop100&action=

NiteHacker (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam (Please refrence this in the article) - There is enough proof and Video proof from BBC!

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html
• http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8230-michael-jackson-has-converted-to-islam.html
• http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539088-michael-jackson-muslim#continueArticle
• http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm
• http://www.mynews.in/fullstory.aspx?storyid=20406
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16873132/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/3494296/Michael-Jackson-converts-to-Islam-and-changes-name-to-Mikaeel.html
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm

I understand many unreasonable users have stated the end to talks about him converting, however, it needs to be brought up again.

The recent BBC article on the death of Jackson mentions Jermaine Jackson as the OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON of the Jackson family referring to 'Allah always being with him in the afterlife.'

IN FACT, here are the official/actual quotes:

"And Allah be with you Michael always. I love you."

PLUS LOOK AT THE VIDEO!!! HE MENTIONS MAY ALLAH BE WITH YOU MICHAEL

Here is the BBC link: BBC NEWS LINK

Please acknowledge this in the article.

P.S. Why does he need to publicly proclaim that he is Muslim?? Faith is a personal matter! I KNOW it is hard for Western users to cope with his conversion. Sad.

Thank you, Vseferović (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, read this discussion. Several editors and administrators agreed these reports are inconclusive due to the fact they are all reprints of The Sun, which is a tabloid, and are to be excluded. Also: New York Daily news Jackson's New York lawyer, Londell McMillan, took the opportunity to trash a British press report that Jackson has become a Muslim. "That's rubbish. It's completely untrue," McMillan told reporters. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The article provided at nydailynews is listed under gossips. Also, lawyers can say whatever they want. There are certain cases where lawyers do at times give contradicting statments. And as I read in the article even MJ does it. So what is to say he was acting in the best interest of his client, to say what was said. Talk to Magibon 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page archive search box, where this was discussed extensively. The consensus was not to add this due to the dubious sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand and therefore noted it above. However, BBC is not a tabloid like the Sun. It was Jackson's brother, Jermaine Jackson, who mentioned the comment. There is a video of the press conference as well. I would find it awkward if my brother mentioned "May Allah be with you Michael" after my death and I did not adhere to Islam. I guess we'll have to see how his funeral turns out. Thanks, Vseferović (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be odd? Jermaine Jackson was a well known devout Muslim. I don't find it strange at all he would use Islamic expressions for anyone's passing if that is his religion, regardless of whether or not others share those beliefs. And BBC is not claiming Michael Jackson was muslim, only that his brother offered his own religious condolence. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider this: I am an atheist, but my boss often says to me, "God bless you this weekend". Does this make me a Christian? Sidasta (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And if I say "May the Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you Michael", does that make him a Pastafarian? no. John Hayes^talk 11:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice defaming of religions there, people 91.142.61.4 (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, or how it helps to improve the article. John Hayes^talk 12:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, does it really matter what his religion was? His music was amazing! I mean Thriller was the best selling album of all time! Shark96z (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally yes, if it's a significant feature of his life (i'm not saying it is) then it should be mentioned, but only if it can be verified by reliable sources. Your opinions of his music are not relevant to this talk page. John Hayes^talk 12:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Vseferović I agree. we should have another disscusion to build a new consensus about it, also I think it is very wrong to not even leave a single mention of the report. Regardless of truth or accuracy, it is vertifiable (citable) and as long as we say who reported it, it should solve npov. It is up to reader if he/she wants to accept the reported story.Talk to Magibon 13:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

People, Muslims believe you cannot pray for the non-Muslims, in this case Jermaine has said "Allah be with you", that surely means Michael was a believer, if he wasn't a Muslim he would have said may he rest in peace as the usual saying, but he is referring to the way Muslims see God, it makes sense. DinajGao (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Muslims do many things that they're not 'supposed to'. Its irrelevant what you think - unless mention of his religion is made in a wp:reliable source, it doesn't go in the article. That's about it really. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but what is that supposed to mean? I think it is really reliable because it contains a video, instead of the word God used, Allah was used, that is enough to suggest he is Muslim. DinajGao (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An archived comment that I think you should reconsider,

It means exactly what it says - that Muslims do many things they're not supposed to. Just as Christians do. And for that matter, just about anybody involved in any other religion. Just because his brother made some comment that you suggest isn't allowed by his religion doesn't automatically mean you can assume anything other than it was an off-hand remark. Until you present actual, reliable evidence that MJ converted to Islam, you can't say it in this article. Full stop. End of. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

none of us can really say whether he is a muslim or not, because he did keep it a secret. we'll just have to see how his funeral is carried out. DinajGao (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, he just chose not to comment on the matter. That doesn't mean he had a secret to keep. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Where news is carried in multiple national, multi-national or global news agencies; it is taken as credible on the balance of probabilities. This is a legal test. We are not applying anything more stringent nor is this required.

This is not a test applied on other articles especially in relation to someone's faith let alone reportage.

If it should be done here then we have serious issues of bias, agenda, POV and discriminatory conduct to answer. There are now enough news media sources (NPOV) which have independently confirmed this - they do not all refer to the Sun as source material. It is not for WPs to have to interrogate news media agencies and reporters about the validity of their claims. They report, we recite, you decide.

It is for WPs to in the least reflect the common knowledge - not bias or agenda driving. Statements like "prove it or move on" are unhelpeful on WP and raise serious questions about the motivation for making such statements especially where they are backed up with disproportionate penalties for accurate article writing. Seniority does not exclude us from error or bias. Ask Dick Cheney. It is however common practice in the modern media age for most news media in the modern age to be 'echoed' across varying sources. This is how many agencies work.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202008/news/nationalnews/michael_jackson_converts_to_islam_139892.htm http://www.arabianbusiness.com/539088-michael-jackson-muslim#continueArticle http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/8230-michael-jackson-has-converted-to-islam.html

Our own definition of news is: 'News is any new information or information on current events which is presented by print, broadcast, Internet, or word of mouth to a third party or mass audience. News, the reporting of current information on television and radio, and in newspapers and magazines'

Reuters and UPI work in exactly this manner. It is unusual that something so accepted in so many places requires such a debate here. Could it be that the most famous man in pop history potentially converting to Islam raises too many issues. WP does not shirk from article writing on controversial issues. We do not censor the truth. If the story is carried in multiple national or global news sources it should be, despite misgivings, relied upon and reported on if relevent. Despite us deploring them, The Sun and Fox News Corp are news media sources (and sister companies).

If you want to apply an indirectly discriminatory condition on the reporting relating to Muslims, we are on a slippery slope. Someone should give Jimmy a heads up in this case.

Amendments should be made to the article to correspond to at least that it has been reported - to the scale of the reporting. How many Muslims have confirmed to the press directly their faith? Is it something we ask Jews, Christians or any other faith group to do? NB: having recently returned from the Middle East, there is widespread acceptance of this as a matter of fact, including his building and funding of mosques and appearances publically."

This was taken from this disscusion.Talk to Magibon 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jermaine wanted Michael to convert to Islam, in 2007, it makes sense after reports he converted because he was influenced by his brother and he travelled to Bahrain. I think you have to take the actual person into consideration to whether he really converted and you cannot just take the words of his lawyer, how do you know exactly whether he is telling the truth or not, i think there are so many evidences which suggest he has converted, but I believe he wanted to hide his conversion for some particular reason. There should be at least a mention in the article that his brother wanted him to convert, and there were numerous new articles which stated that he did, whether this is true or not, it has to be neutral. Lets wait and see how he is buried, if in a Islamic ritual, then we must accept further that he is Muslim. [6] [7][8][9] DinajGao (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I found another source, which is about a top Russian Muslim mufti stating that an autopsy can be be performed, so why would a mufti have anything to do with Michael's death, he is a Muslim. DinajGao (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That reminds me, wasn't at one point, MJ guarded by a group called "Nation of Islam". Talk to Magibon 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i did see he was guarded by men wearing red bow ties, but he was never part of the organization. DinajGao (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dinaj, it's not our job to try to determine whether he was muslim or not, and certainly not from what his brother said (a primary source), or from the fact he visted Bahrain (original research). It's quite possible he was muslim, but the truth is actually irrelevant here. What is important is that it's stated in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. In this case all the examples seem to lead back to one article in a rather unreliable newspaper. That's not enough to verify it. John Hayes^talk 16:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it could only be confirmed when he's finally laid to rest during a burial ceremony or summat. — Blue。 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. My parents wish me "God go ...", and my Christian wife (it's a civil marriage, unless we're discussing religion) tells me I'm having a Christian funeral if I go first. It seems like I'm going to have to get a lawyer to make sure I get a headstone that says "But I'm not a %$^#^%* christian!". There are sources in the public domain claiming both that he was, and that he was not. As long as the article records the dissenting points of view, I reckon it's NPOV. As for his name, you'd need some sort of official document to say here that he's Mikaeel, wouldn't you? His comeback tour was as 'Michael Jackson'. Let's wait and see what official documents come into the light before we try to snatch his body, people. SeanCollins (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument is important, maybe Christians have a different view point to this because most are nominal, but to Muslims an Islamic funeral is important and required for everyone, an Islamic prayer is just not given to any person, this is known as Janazah which is funeral prayer that is obligatory for all Muslims before they are buried. We'll just have to wait and see the funeral, if hes buried in a non-Islamic way, then he's not a Muslim, but if he is, then he is a Muslim. Its simple, i doubt it may happen though. DinajGao (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found another source from these articles which may indicate he has converted or may have a Muslim funeral: [10][11] DinajGao (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You have found a source that indicates there were reports and speculation that he may have converted, nothing more. Those sources are just regurgitating old news. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A person's religious status is really important, we cannot just dismiss these reports, the problem is Michael would never have confirmed it, probably because of media bias or it may effect his image, seeing the extent of his fame was. What we have to do is mention that there were reports he has converted to Islam but state he didn't confirm it, I believe many people visiting the article would want to know something of whether he did convert or not, but they would not find it, why? the single source which says some lawyer disagrees how can we decide from there he didnt convert, how reliable is that lawyer, did even hear about, is he biased or whatever, that guy cannot decide his religious status. Even if he did convert will the media ever publish that news? We'll just have to see his funeral. DinajGao (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A person's religious status is only important to an individual, such as yourself perhaps. Personally I couldn't care less which invisible sky fairy a person chooses to believe in, what matters most is, are such reports notable? Did they receive significant media coverage, and not just in tabloids, but in broadsheets? Did Jackson ever comment on the matter?

Articles aren't a list of everything that has ever been reported, no matter the size. If that were the case about this particular individual then this article would be about 500kb. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"best selling album"?

what's THE source for "best selling album"--Bogger (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. References one through eight. I'm pretty sure it's in the Guinness World Record book too. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Another reference, also posted above...

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=1&table=tblTop100&action=

NiteHacker (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also Guinness World Records 2008 edition. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I should make a point that the RIAA sales are US-only; Jackson was more popular in say, the UK, than the Eagles. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Death

New item about the cause of his death... says, according to a family attorney, that he was over-medicated... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/25/entertainment/main5115503.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionsArea;cbsnewsSectionsArea.0 NiteHacker (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if you think its info that adheres to the wiki guidelines and should be in the article, put it in the article. This is page for discussing the article, not a RSS feed. 92.15.13.86 (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much controversy right now... so I will leave it for someone else to make the change. I don't feel qualified enough to do it myself. I know this is NOT an RSS, BUT it is a discussion page and so I am just adding to the discussion! NiteHacker (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, I think a consensus has been made that they will wait for the results of the autopsy before adding anymore to the article about his death. NiteHacker (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Until the autopsy and coronial investigation (and toxicology), anything you find on the Web is just pure speculation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree - this article http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2009/06/26/world-in-shock-as-king-of-pop-and-music-icon-michael-jackson-dies-aged-50-86908-21472673/ also states he over medicated. I think it's relevent now and should be added. Does that mean that until we see his dead body, is death is also speculation??? Jacobsdad (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosing "death" is not as hard as figuring out why a person died. Any journalist is qualified to state someone is dead, but stating their cause of death without an autopsy at this point is purely speculative and cannot possibly be taken as fact. There is no need to rush to insert information, this is an encyclopedia, not TMZ. Matty (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The most prudent thing to do right now would be to wait for the autopsy, although I am hearing from Fox News on TV right now that he was given morphine shortly before his death. However, that may not be the cause of his heart attack. Until the trained professional finishes with an autopsy, and the toxicology results get back, it is too early to tell why he died. --Scouto2 (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't morphine... it was Demorol.

According to a Good Morning America (USA) reporter, he was on several pain medications... reportedly, one of them was demorol, a very strong and serious medication. They are saying that he might have taken an injection just prior to his death which caused his breathing to slow down and then stopped leading to the cardiac arrest. However, supposedly, a physician was there with him and if it was due to demorol, according to GMA, the doctor should have recognized the problem he was having and administered an opioid receptor antagonist to counter-act the effects of the demorol. However, the reporter on GMA is wrong... according to research on Demorol (Pethidine) an opioid receptor antagonist won't work. So, you can't even trust news sources even! NiteHacker (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see that research -- I have used Narcan extensively in residency with immediate effects, including Demerol. Regardless, it's doubtful that the physician would carry Narcan - it has a short half life, requiring multiple boluses and if he's going to carry Narcan, then he might as well have a code cart and AED with him (though the latter would not have made a difference in his probable PEA). Robotk (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I seem to be wrong on the antidote... you are right! Wikipedia is WRONG! Although, I should KNOW better NOT to trust Wikipedia... LMAO... who can I trust??? LOL NiteHacker (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Currency conversion

This article incorrects states (under the Death part) that 50MM GBP is the equivalent to 100 MM USD. 50 MM GBP is about 82 MM USD, so it would be more correct to say 83 MM USD.

I'd say remove the dollar figure entirely, or fix it to a specific relevant date, as otherwise it can never be correct. John Hayes^talk 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

in fact I've removed it now. As mentioned above, and in the edit summary, if you can find a source which lists the amount in dollars at the time then please add it again. John Hayes^talk 11:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Demarol is one of the narcotic pain relievers that actually cause more cardiac issues then any other

Demarol conversion

Demarol gets converted to other metabolites after death - should these metabolites not be named accurately too, to avoid confusion over the actual cause of death??79.77.76.161 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.77.76.161 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section missing

The article needs a section that covers his personal life: his year and a half marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, his two children by Deborah Jeanne Rowe, and infobox references to these people.

Also, Jackson's own mother, Katherine Jackson, will care for the Jackson children, according to his lawyer.Dogru144 (talk) 10:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget his father! NiteHacker (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

All aspects of his personal life are covered (including marriages and children) chronologically if you bother to read the article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, excuse me! I did not see that there before... maybe a page revert changed it? NiteHacker (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Duh, I see that stuff

I said there needs to be a section.Dogru144 (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate sections are not required. Chronological listing of information is intentional to avoid WP:UNDUE weight as this is a featured article. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 11:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of many featured articles that don't use that format. To give you an example of the poor quality of this so-called undue chronological format, in drafting the below paragraph initially as a lede para, I was of course reading the article for material to summarise. I attempted to ascertain the year of birth of his first two children. I scanned it once, nothing. I read it a little bit closer a second time, nothing. Ten minutes later, I am still left unsure as to whether I have just not been able to find it in the article, or it is actaully not there. I gave up in the end, none the wiser, as you can see below by 'late 1990s'. So, if this is the FAC standard of presenting information, it is an epic fail. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is my suggestion for a personal life section, which should exist, and does exist in 99% of biographies. It is not acceptable as a reply to say 'read the entire wall of text' if you want to find out he was married two times, or any other basic personal life details. I just recently attempted to add the text as an additional paragraph to the lede, but its quite long and probably misses stuff, but anyway it was unsurprisingly summarily removed. The current lede, for personal details, is extremely vague, and is not an accurate summary in my opinion.

MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The current lede which passed Featured Article Candidacy and has been stable for a number of months gives accurate coverage of his personal information, without going into Unnecessary detail which is provided in the body of the article and Michael Jackson's sub-articles. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC is not FINAL VERSION. I suggest a section, because as I already said, 'read the (massive) article' is not an appropriate response to make up for the shortcomings of the lede section, if you want basic personal life information. If the current version is considered to satisfy undue weight, maybe the people who commented on the FAC need to take a look at the rolling news items which are effectively audio visual lede sections repeated hourly. In comparison, taking each point mentioned per hour, they resemble my text more than the current lede does in terms of ratio of music/personal details. MickMacNee (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not breaking news: While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). See also: Wikipedia:News articles. If readers want a "detailed" history of Michael Jackson's life, that is what the entire article and its sub-articles are for. The lede should not list every detail of his life. WP:CONSENSUS on this has already been established. If you wish to change that consensus, you'll have to wait until a number of editors agree or suggest WP:FAR, either of which will have to wait until the article becomes stable again after the hysteria of Jackson's passing subsides. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The rolling news reports as of now, post-announcement, are now running continualy short form summary style biographies. Switch on your TV and have a look. Including details of his children's names etc, is of course not NEWS. And I have given up on getting this in the lede, as explained three times now, this is the suggested start for a Personal Life section. MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the news reports for almost 24 hours now. Nonetheless, I see no reason to break the chronological order of the event of his life. As previously stated, consensus currently dictates not to give any one aspect of his life more emphasis over another. Consensus can change, but I doubt it will anytime soon. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I officially give up then. Personal Life sections are certainly not unusual elsewhere, if the consensus for this specific article has come to something different, and has determined that mixing that basic information up within career minutia is in any way serving the NPOV, so be it. If you personally think the current format is readable, and you don't recognise the issues given above, maybe you know its actual contents too well, and have never come to it from a 'need to find out basic information x/y/z' standpoint. There is a GULF of scale between the lede and the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Crossover?

Not being rude, but what genres of music did Jackson crossover from and to? As I study the article I assume that it means the Jacksons crossed over from a black soul market to a pop/soul market. Yes/No? Whilst the term is familiar in the music business and the context is fairly clear to those in the know in a lot of the music media, I feel that it should usually be used a bit more specifically in an encyclopedia. IceDragon64 (talk) 11:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To be more accurate it was from Soul and R&B to Pop/Rock, while retaining Soul and R&B. I don't have a source, though, but I hope that answers your question. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The Jackson 5 actually recorded their first album IN the town of Jackson, USA, as a Country and Western band, the first 'black pioneers' of this genre, and have their prints in the concrete outside the 'Old Oprey', where later black pioneers of this genre, like Wilson Picket, The Pips (before they joined with Martha Reeves naturally) and Tammy Wynette also made their mark.79.77.76.161 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)bubbleboy79.77.76.161 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit died unexpectedly

Is that appropriate... shouldn't unexpectedly be dropped? NiteHacker (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, it's not sourced whether it was expected or unexpected, but either way this doesn't really add anything to the sentence. Go for it. John Hayes^talk 12:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "died (or passed away) suddenly" is perhaps the most conventional way of describing the passing of someone whose death from a cause other than accidental, was unexpected, i.e. not following a terminal illness or from old-age. It does I believe add to the meaning and easy understanding if used conventionally. JohnB57 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

we definitely wont use the term "passed away" but i dont think we should use the term "suddenly" after died either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Which "we" do you mean anon? I thought WP was more democratic than that... The BBC this evening reported that "tributes... have been paid to Michael Jackson who died suddenly yesterday in Los Angeles". It may be - but I don't think it is - different in US English, but this form of words concisely describes the manner of death - i.e not an accident, not from an illness and in every way unforseen. I agree that "passed away" is euphemistic but "we definitely won't use" is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Unless you own it of course - and somehow I doubt that! JohnB57 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

u r right that "definitely wont use" might be a bit strong... but u r wrong to say that it "is not acceptable on Wikipedia". "we" as in wikipedia have style guidelines that "we" should follow... of course if consensus decides to ignore the guidelines and invoke IAR then that is a different story... but it isnt bloody likely to happen... Assuming good faith, 70.71.22.45 (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

time zone

shoudn't the time zone be incuded in the opening paragraph for overseas readers of this article?

--on it. I'll make the correction. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Return to Live Performance

As of this writing, the section titled, "2008–2009: Milestones, real estate, planned return to live performance" does not have anything about a planned return to live performance in there. Either something needs to be added or the title of the section needs to be changed. 68.254.169.228 (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep seeing something in the Article that isn't there when I try to edit it out.

I keep seeing "(August 29, 1958 – faked death June 25, 2009)" but when I try to edit it out it says "(August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)" in the source. It's not getting rapidly edited and undone, so why am I seeing this? --Occono (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You might need to bypass your cache. ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm not seeing it anymore anyway though. However, refreshing the page never worked earlier for me to fix it. (I think you might want to have a template to put on major-trafiic articles like this with that advice).--Occono (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Main section on faked death

In the introduction listing of Michael Jackson, there is a term "faked death" listed in front of Michael Jackson's death date. Is there anyway that can be removed from the article because when I tried to edit it out, the "faked death" wa not listed. What is up with that? Chris (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Due to the high volume of traffic this article is getting, people are altering it by the minute. If we see vandalism, we'll remove it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried bypassing your cache? ----Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cache Bypass?

is it true that Mikael had a Cache bypass, and this is what he died of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.76.161 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Death section - iTunes Update

As of 10:00 AM on June 26, 2009, Michael Jackson's albums occupy 7 of the top 10 spots on iTunes's top 10. I think this should be added to the "Death" section of the article. Here is the proposed text...

"In the hours following Jackson's death, his record sales increased dramatically. His seminal album Thriller climbed to number one on the American iTunes music chart, while another eight [] rose into the top 40. By the morning of June 26, 2009, his albums occupied 7 of the chart's top 10 spots.

As of 10:00 AM, he also had 10 of the top 25 singles.

CBattles6 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)CBattles6

Have you got a source for that? John Hayes^talk 15:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson articles for GA/FA

I think we should make a real effort to get all of the article related to Michael Jackson to at least GA, and preferably to FA, in the near future. I will make a start on one of the article. Post a comment here or on the WP:WikiProject Michael Jackson page if you are willing to help. Look through the current articles and take as many as possible to Peer Review in their current state. We will then have some concrete issues to address. Thanks. 03md 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it would be nice. Here are the current article alerts. I suggest that all individuals interested in helping with MJ articles watchlist it, as we always like a lot of participation in the peer reviews. Pyrrhus16 16:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Website Overloading

Looks like the site is getting overwhelmed again and probably will be a problem for most of today... time to leave now! NiteHacker (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's ten to 8 in the morning in LA. People are probably just catching up on what they've missed while asleep. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's me too... on the west coast of the US! :-) NiteHacker (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

News "broke the internet"

Per CNN [12], in which Wikipedia is mentioned.

Not as many edits in 24 hours as to Sarah Palin following the announcement of her joining McCain's campaign.

Unsure if the pause in service on Wikipedia is due to high traffic to this article or other issues. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The page had almost one million views in a single hour at one point. I'd imagine that today's page-views will be insane. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Wiki servers have pooped on days where no worldwide news was reported. Was there an outage yesterday on Wikipedia, and was it caused by massive hits on this article as well as Farah Fawcett's? --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[13] if you didn't know about it... – (iMatthew • talk) at 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your first hunch is right. WP went crashing down shortly after confirmation, and I couldn't revert other related vandalism going on elsewhere. MuZemike 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article about the Wikimedia techies' view on this: [14] MuZemike 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama's hit count after the 2008 election. Almost twice as many hits in one day than yesterday. --Moni3 (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's NOT over yet... wait to see what today's hits are! A lot of people haven't seen this yet! NiteHacker (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not explain why servers apparently crashed yesterday when traffic to Wikipedia has been greater in the past. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could be TOO many hits at ONE time... not over a span of time? Google calls it... 'volcanic'! NiteHacker (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A valid hypothesis, but one that we are speculating on here on the talk page. Yet it's in the article that traffic to Wikipedia apparently caused the shutdown of this site. --Moni3 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to database reports, this article is averaging around 330k view per hour. That would translate to nearly 8 million views in 24 hours. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I keep checking the Template:Popular articles and I saw the largest number last night, which would be recorded as June 26 with 329,761 hits. Nothing so far today I have seen records hits over 300,000. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

At the peak activity, it was close to 1 million hits per hour, [15]. I expect we'll have more detailled stats soon. Cenarium (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I may need some help untangling this. I live on the east coast and heard the news around 6.30, which is 3.30 Pacific time. The article mentions the crash at 3.15 Pacific time. The template link provided by Cenarium lists the time as 19.13 on June 25. Is that UTC? How does that translate into EST and PDT? In EST, UTC edits made after 7 pm transfer to the next day, so if it was 7 pm in EST, it should read June 26. No problem here saying the time zones completely confuse me. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Twitter crashed, too, causing problems for the Iranian protesters not being able to send messages. Now, they're probably going to blame Mahmoud Ahmanutjob for MJ's death, too! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite a handy feature. Every time Wikipedia crashes I know to check the news channels. The last one ten minutes ago was TMZ reporting that police want to speak to Jackos doctor. MickMacNee (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What? I recall several instances where I was unable to edit for several hours at a time, yet I recall nothing in particular happening on those days. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

See here and folowing messages for an explanation by developers of what happened, this in particular. I remember having experimented this: database errors when trying to edit the article, and viewing old versions even when properly refreshed. It also explains why many users was seeing the infobox broken while it had already been repaired. I think the problems were mostly restricted to this article. Cenarium (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

'Children'

In the domestic partner section, it says 'children'. I seriously don't think this is true. Can someone please fix this, because it won't let me.

Total number of hits on the Internet

This would be interesting to know, if this is possible... and what websites and/or services (and music sites) were affected by this event... then include ALL this info in the article just to prove the popularity!

One site said 'Jackson died, almost takes internet with him'... sorry, but I had to laugh at that one! NiteHacker (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link for a story on the internet traffic generated by Jacksons death: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/michael.jackson.internet/index.html I think that this is worth noting in the death section. I also think that there will probably eventually need to be a death article because the scope of his death has been so far reaching, and it hasn't even been 24 hours yet. Jcsavestheday (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

New Page On His Death Is Necessary

As suggested elsewhere on this discussion page, a new separate page on his death is absolutely necessary. There are separate pages on the death of huge personalities such as American Presidents - Reagan, Ford, Kennedy; and pop icons such as Buddy Holy. Even the Iranian girl "Neda" has a death page, although her fame arose ONLY as a result of her death.

Being an American president or world leader should not be the only basis of qualification for a separate page; rather, it should be based on the monumental impact of the death event, the surrounding circumstances (as in Neda's case) and the reach of the individual's influence on popular culture while alive. These points cannot be disputed in the case of Michael Jackson, and Wikipedia already has precedents as mentioned.

Also, the fact that this forum has generated so much discussion on his death is another pointer to the need for a separate page on Jackson's death. It is immaterial that the dust is yet to settle on this monumental occurence, as updates can be entered as events unfold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin1935 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing wikipedia itself.

The section of the death of Jackson has a bit about the media and the internet. This includes references to wikipedia itself. Does this breach WP:WAWI Martin451 (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not if Wikipedia made it into reliable sources. I have doubts about those sources' claims, but they're there. See also Talk:Michael_Jackson#News_.22broke_the_internet.22 --Moni3 (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why. There are many self-references on Wikipedia of the site crashing due to user overload in extreme circumstances. This is certainly a relevent point to include anyway. This page is one of the first that will appear when searching his name in a search engine, so this helps to describe the extent of people overloading anything to do with him on the net. --81.110.31.95 (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed the word "itself" from the statement. Jolly Ω Janner 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

MizaBot archival interval

Can we temporarily step up the archive interval from 10 days to 3? The posts are accumulating at such a rate I think that is needed.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced it to five days for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

Oops... sorry, I made a mistake and edited on a wrong page and I think I lost some posts here... can someone revert it to the previous state or recover the missing items... again, I am sorry! NiteHacker (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

911 Call

A local news source around here posted a link to the 911 call. Does this have any relevance, and should this be included in the article? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

doesn't sound very authentic to me, but it does come from TMZ according to BBC.... leaky_caldron (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This raises too many sourcing and privacy issues, and should not be included for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on folks, the BBC have got it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8121884.stm) so I don't see what the issue is! If they believe it's genuine, I think we can be reasonably confident. If later they remove it, Wikipedia can too.

The Los Angeles Fire Department released a recording of the phone call, transcript: [16]. This could be added, as the sourcing is OK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain why they called the Fire Brigade when he was found dead? Could this have contributed to delays in getting him to hosptial, and therefore caused the death? 79.77.76.161 (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)greatestfan79.77.76.161 (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In America, when you dial 911, you will usually always get the fire department (brigade). In the largest cities, these departments also run the ambulance/paramedic service. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 911 call, I found it interesting that the 911 operator told the caller to put Michael on the floor and perform CPR. The caller said he was in the bed, yet they had a doctor with them and had already started CPR. I don't know a lot about the specifics of CPR, but I imagine the bounciness of the bed might change how effective CPR would be. And if this is the case, why would the doctor not know to put him on the floor first?--TheByrus (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Media Image

I have made the following image: http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6937/jackson2.png Worthy for inclusion with a tagline like 'Worlds press focus in on LA' ? Dvmedis (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a nice compilation image - good work. It could run into WP:NFCC issues, but if it was reduced in size, it could qualify as fair use due to the media interest generated by the story. As a featured article, there is a tendency to avoid copyrighted images as far as possible, but this is worth considering.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It matches WP:NFCC criteria on policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8.. primarily as they are free-to-air broadcasts captured in Europe, the images aren't replaceable by anything else and it's a pretty major event. For these reasons I think it would scrape in under fair use. Dvmedis (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If I get one more agreement from anybody, I'll try and get it sorted for inclusion? Obviously I'm wary of putting anything into the article that might get speedily removed by someone else.. Dvmedis (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue for consensus. I suggest asking image folks at User:Elcobbola or User:howcheng. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It would fail NFCC8 by a mile, trust me. Basically, the image could be replaced by a sentence, and not lose any meaning. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is already full of many non-free media (images and the song samples) as decoration.. what will 1 more hurt? (that was sarcasm of course - in all actuality, based on guidelines, much of the images and song samples should be removed from this article as they are non-free and decorative) - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Size

The contributions about various aspects of his death seem to be spinning out of control. The contributions aren't even about his death, they are about reactions and what not from all kinds of different areas. Do we try and curtail it now or just let it grow for a week or so and then cut it all out after it calms down? Beach drifter (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be wise to let it grow somewhere in a sandbox. I predict a separate article will be necessary before too long. --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson is being quietly removed from the pedia, as the current Death section is apparently fine for holding this material. MickMacNee (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

New article

Eventually the death/funeral section will grow so big that a new article will be required. Could Death of Michael Jackson be unblocked at some point? I attempted to start the article yesterday but it all got a bit heated! Francium12 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think at least once today someone has created it to have it either prod'd or proposed merged. I didn't follow up on it but I don't think its there. The question is, in a few months will the article still be significant? Beach drifter (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP tends to lean heavily towards recentism. I was surprised to find that Mark Sanford's extramartial affair had its own article. And I wonder about the 30+ articles on Iraq terrorism incidents. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is not, will it be significant in the future, it is whether it is considered notable now. Notability is not temporary. MickMacNee (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:SBST - let's give it some time Fritzpoll (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@MickMacNee - notability is not temporary but there is a difference between notability and newsworthiness... wikipedia is not news 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thriller Youtube Video

In the "Death" section, it links to a 6 million hit Youtube video of Thriller.

This should be changed to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyJbIOZjS8), which is the full 14-minute video with more than 38 million hits.

I've removed it entirely. it was not cited. The Thriller video was also a copyvio since it was not uploaded by Jackson. The video you linked to is the official one that we should link to. On that note, this morning that video had 34 million hits; now it hs 38 million. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

yeah we need a secondary source to talk about how many hits it has received... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vh1 Classic Tribute

Vh1 Classic is having a weekend dedicated to Micheal it should be added to a tribute section.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK, 3 of the primary channels; Sky One, Five and BBC One are all airing rushed-tribute programs TONIGHT.. It's a little unbelievable. Dvmedis (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1.4 million views on the day he died/5.9 million the next

On the day he died, this article received 1.4 million visits, up 70-100x normal volume. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to know that we are being monitered by so many of MJ's fans--Jojhutton (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's in the New York Times by the way, With Jackson Entry, Wikipedia May Have Set a Record. And there are several millions more expected for today. Cenarium (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and it crashed the server...Great! -.- --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Still about a million under sarah palin's one day total.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's smashed that record. 5.9 million hits yesterday.--chaser (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1993-1994

Re. "admitting for the first time that he had vitiligo" - should this not say "claiming for the first time that he had vitiligo"?

"Admitting" implies that it's true: "claiming" implies that it might not be. Perhaps a more neutral word like "stating" might be more appropriate? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"claimed" is one of the words to avoid, and "admit" is also there, given with caution. According to wikipedia "said" and "stated" are standard journalistic words. Therefore it should be changed to either "said" or "stated"... 208.119.72.6 (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctor, Doctor!

Wherefore art thou???

Has the doctor been located yet?

Site says the police are preparing to interview him. I have heard that he is missing and they are trying to find him. So did they find him yet? If not, then the article needs to be edited. NiteHacker (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has returned to Los Angeles and the police have found him. TheLeftorium 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cause of Death Deferred

A representative of the coroner's office is currently speaking. According to their office, they will NOT be releasing a preliminary cause of death. In other words, we will not know a cause of death for 4-8 weeks. That means any cause of deaths released by the media is pure speculation and therefore are not to be posted here. Any such postings should be considered ludicrous and deleted. The coroners office also refused to comment on what prescription drugs Michael Jackson may have been taken so that further exposes that any causes of deaths posted are not legitimate. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's going to be the case... then someone needs to edit the article that has references to Demerol in it... and maybe some other edits may need to be done... especially the Death section should be reviewed to see if it complies with your request. NiteHacker (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the mention of Demerol. The article doesn't directly cite it as a cause of death and refers to media reports. Qaziphone (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a few articles on the matter

• Jackson coroner delays ruling on cause of death
• Coroner: Michael Jackson cause of death deferred

ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Number of records sold

There is currently an edit war going on over how many records Jackson sold. This should be addressed here and consensus arrived at, but that's obviously not happening. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It already happened, further up this page - see section 16.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. 750 million "records" (including albums, cassette tapes, LPs, CDs, singels, and DVDs etc.) is accurately sourced by numerous reliable sources and is present in the lead and in the Legacy section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

restoring purposefully removed links by Vorash2000 as seen here:

• Further news reports on sales figures seen here.
• and here also. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly are you taking these numbers from ? See by yourself Michael_Jackson_album_discography ! I can't understand how could it reach such an outrage number as 750 million ???!!! Vorash2000 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"He sold 750 million records worldwide and released 13 No. 1 singles, Sony said." [17] 70.71.22.45 (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sony's iterated it, as has pretty much every single major news organization. Remember, Wikipedia is about Verifiability and we've got it here in bunches. 750 Million is the number. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 03:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request - grammar change

Change "The death was transferred to the Los Angeles County Coroner for investigation" to "The invegistation of the death was transferred to the Los Angeles Country Coroner for investigation" OR "The case was transferred to the Los Angeles County Coroner for investigation"... death is non-transferable... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, combining the sentence with the next one might make sense... "The death was transferred to the Los Angeles County Coroner for investigation.[163] Jackson's body was transported by helicopter from UCLA to the LA Coroner's offices in Boyle Heights.[168][169]" to "Jackson's body was transported by helicopter from UCLA to the LA Coroner's offices and the case was transferred to the Los Angeles County Coroner for investigation." Any thoughts? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The active voice is stylistically superior, something like, "Jackson's body was transported by helicopter from UCLA to the office of the Los Angeles County Coroner which has assumed responsibility for the investigation." – ukexpat (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

sounds good to me, as long as it no longer says "the death was transferred..." 70.71.22.45 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"was transported" is passive voice, not active voice. Powers ^T 12:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Businessman

Should we use this opportunity to correct the strange "businessman" characterization in the opening sentence? There's a lot of coverage of Michael Jackson and none that I've seen refers to him or discusses him as having been a businessman. If we're trying to note his investments in music catalogs there's certainly a more accurate way to do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

we've discussed this in depth before here, and here with community involvement - as you are well aware - and to counter your argument, in the past 24 hours I've seen numerous examples of reporters, commentators and other personnel connected to Jackson refer to him as an excellent businessman, with specific examples seen here by Sony and here by CNNThe Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The first source uses the word in a quote and the second source you've got there seems to discuss him as having business acumen and being a successful pop music mogul, but I still don't think the word businessman applies or is appropriate in the opening sentence. But great minds don't always have to think alike. I would love to find some sort of compromise wording that satisfies both our interests, but perhaps that isn't possible. I think something along the lines of "pop music mogul", or "music industry mogul", or major figure/player in the music industry, would be in order and a good addition to the "recording artist and entertainer" that's there now.. but that may change any second... Cheers. God bless Michael Jackson and all his fans. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Six million page views

This is a record: the article Michael Jackson has been viewed more than six million times in the latest 24 hours, including redirects other than Michael jackson, in addition to the 1.5 million page views just before. So since the announcement, we should have reached the 8 million page views. Cenarium (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It beat Barack Obama's record of 2.3 million in 24 hours for sure. I think this is a new record for Wikipedia. Jolly Ω Janner 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It surpassed the amount of views of the Main Page. Quite amazing. — Σxplicit 02:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/michael.jackson.internet/index.html Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Exact time of death

"Jackson was pronounced dead at about 2:26 pm local time (21:26 UTC)" -- Reuters link now is dead. Original news story was updated and exact time no more available. I just can't find another authoritative source… Trycatch (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

removed statement

I removed the following statement: "It has been reported that police are preparing to interview Michael Jackson's personal doctor after the star's family suggested he died because of a drug overdose of [[Pethidine|Demerol]], an opioid similar to morphine.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Michael-Jackson-Dies-Of-Heart-Attack-After-Being-Rushed-To-UCLA-Hospital-In-Los-Angeles/Article/200906415319936|title=Michael Jackson Dies Of Heart Attack After Being Rushed To UCLA Hospital In Los Angeles|publisher=Sky News|date=June 26, 2009|accessdate=June 27, 2009}}</ref>" The Sky news article references TMZ as the source of this statement, TMZ has been noted above as non reliable source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable things Wikipedia doesn't yet tell the reader about Jackson, anywhere

Glove!

I suggest adding a subcategory to 'musical style and performance' about his iconic wardrobe. The red leather zipper jacket, fedora from Smooth Criminal, maybe others could be mentioned, but it seems wrong that there's not a single reference to the signature single glove, perhaps along with (sourced) speculation as to why he had it. Pxlt (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I've been looking for information on the origins of both the red leather jacket and signature single glove and have come up empty. Definitely needs to be addressed.

I'll third this. I did eventually find some info at Billie Jean, but the glove was a major part of his image, and should at least be briefly discussed here. Zagalejo^^^ 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stamps

Jackson has been the subject of several commemorative stamps over the years. Several magazines and book biographies document this. Uncle G (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This blog post discusses an unissued Virgin Islands set — Scott has a small note at the beginning of its 1985 section, stating that "Four stamps picturing Michael Jackson were printed. The designs were not acceptable to the Virgin Islands so they were not issued. A number of cpies had been distributed in advance for publicity purposes." The set of St. Vincent that the blogger mentions are Scott 894-901 (four pairs and four souvenir sheets), issued on 2 December 1985, while the Tanzania issue mentioned at Wikinews is Scott 589, a 350/ stamp issued on 30 March 1990; I don't have time to investigate the others. I don't own Stanley Gibbons or Michel, so I can't tell you anything of what they say. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Presley says Michael knew

Should me mention something about this? http://www.cygy.com/2009/06/lisa-marie-presley-says-michael-jackson.html 70.68.139.248 (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem particularly noteworthy. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. It may be interesting trivia for the "death" section though. Hmmm.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Trivia" says it all. We don't do trivia. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• So in other words, you're saying we should mention that Michael Jackson knew he was going to die someday. Um...Yeah. *cough* HalfShadow 05:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Video of the moonwalk

I've added a video file of the moonwalk. It is in ogg (as all Wikipedia media files must be) and has a strong fair use rationale. I hope this improves the article! Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe .ogg is an audio format. TechOutsider (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See ogg for a breakdown of the audio, video, and file format names. Anyway, the point is, there is now a video in the article which meets Wikipedia's specifications. Awadewit (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

maybe a new record for page views

Check this view history out. If its not a one day record for a single page, then what is the record?--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is because Michael Jackson died.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor was just pointing out that this is a record for Wikipedia..I believe only Barrack Obama and John McCain have ever seen such traffic before, however only combined do they equal this spike. Rgoodermote  06:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As this article is Michael Jackson, and not Michael Jackson on Wikipedia or Wikipedia records I suggest you add this comment to a more appropriate article talk page. John Hayes^talk 15:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We're aware. Rgoodermote  17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

On the day of his death and two following days, he had 1.4M, 5.9M, and 2.0M page views respectively. Since the 1.4 were mostly in less than 1/3 of a day's time, he'll almost certainly break 10M over the first 72 hours. Unfortunately, the stats page above measures calendar days using UTC so it might not show 3 consecutive days totalling 10M views. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted protection of article.

I have looked over the edit history of the article, and what I found is irritating!

the article was protected when there was no reason to, after users tried adding verified information from news services that Michael Jackson had died, and for no other reason.

To those admins responsible, I would strongly suggest that you either learn not to abuse your powers or that you quit.

TSAinc (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has learned a valuable lesson after all this. Portillo (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comically, you seem to contradict yourself here. Matty (talk) 10:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an entry into the controversy section of Wikipedia's own article would be in order. That coupled with the massave spike in page views, cannot be ignored.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Matty, I posted that assuming that people were in fact vandalizing the article, Since it is so common for people now to speak ill of the dead in a pathetic attempt at attention.

HOWEVER, after reviewing the edits, I realized that that was not the case on this article. Which is why I posted this topic.

TSAinc (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson and Russia

Here is a news article about Michael Jackson's impact in Russia: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/26/Michael.Jackson.russia/index.html

Where should the info go? Which article related to Jackson is the best fit for this stuff? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MJ's next album

I'm so sure I remember reading an article on Wikipedia about MJ's to-be-released album. It seems to have disappeared into thin air, along with even any mention of it in any MJ related articles. Google searches don't show anything. Did I dream this, or what? 125.238.109.250 (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You didnt dream it. Portillo (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It turned out to be Thriller 25. 75.73.43.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC).

German wikipedia

• http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diskussion:Michael_Jackson&diff=61606545&oldid=61606386
• michael jackson-black or white with lyrics

Shouldn't there be a link to his texts?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.84.61 (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Links to YouTube videos of pop songs and lyrics websites usually fail WP:EL on copyright grounds.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So I have to look for a book with Michael Jackson lyrics to add it to literature; no?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.222.243 (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Lyrics are copyrighted. They can't be added to Wikipedia articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

countertenor??

"A countertenor is a male singing voice whose vocal range is equivalent to that of a contralto, mezzo-soprano, or (less frequently) a soprano, usually through use of falsetto, or more rarely the normal or modal voice."

Please check that this is correct. Tony (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Check it yourself --90.206.122.228 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a source from Wikipedia and if you are trying to find a source, this would not be allowed. NiteHacker (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Legacy and influence

Would it not be respectful to the children of Michael to be listed under his "Legacy" and Influence? The names of the children are already on the page and sources but listed under the Legacy title seems to be most respectful and appropriate.

"Legacy" in this case, refers to his cultural/musical/career legacy - not bloodline. Its a nice thought, but not appropriate for this section. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope to get some editor feedback

(discussion continued on WikiProject Biography here)

Since first visiting this article yesterday, I noticed one of the most obvious manual of style problems in the infobox. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) the proper way to display place names in the United States is to just use the City and the State. Adding the phrase "United States" or "US" after the state name is not a common practice. Saying Los Angelas, California is proper and falls in line with many years of convential wisdom. Its overkill to add the country name, since the name and the state are all that is required, and wikipedia as well as other longer and more established manual of style policies seem to agree. I did finally remove the country name per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and just plain common sense here, but alas, it was added back in with no explanation as to why. I hope to get other editors take on this situation in hopes to form a basis to correct the situation.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any policy supporting above. In the intro, WP:NCGN specifically says (ephasis mine) "This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places", and further down, in the United States subsection, it says (ephasis mine) city's article should never be titled...". In other words, WP:NCGN is about the city's own article, not about the use everywhere else. I am not aware of anything (WP:MoS or elsewhere) supporting the removal of United States in this article, nor am aware of anything in WP:BIOG supporting it. I just checked a number of relevant (i.e. involving people born in the U.S.) featured articles at WP:BIOG and found none without U.S./USA/United States. Unless someone can provide a rule supporting its removal in this case, I see no reason for this article following a different format than the standard used in WP:BIOG featured articles. 212.10.90.224 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Without muttering up the discussion too much, I will show how to find it.

1. First click on the link WP:Naming conventions (geographic names)

2. Then scroll down the article until you reach the section titled "Specific Topics"

3. Next, find the subsection that deals with the "United States"

4. You will notice that the first sentence of that subsection states, and I quote The canonical form for cities in the United States is City, State (the "comma convention").

This is basic MOS that is further backed up by The Chicago Manual of Style, A Manual for Writers by Kate Turabian, and hundreds of years of precident. If other articles also link the name of the country for US cities, then they are also wrong. Thanks, I hope that this helps clear it up.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, you just point to the section I specifically pointed to in my previous comment. To take the intro quote again: "This page describes conventions for determining the names of Wikipedia articles on places". In other words: That page is only about the specific locality wiki pages, not about the use anywhere elsewhere. If you can point to any wiki rule showing that this also is the correct use in an article like Michael Jackson, I would still be interested in knowing about it, but otherwise the issue noted in my last comment remains, and it should be re-inserted in the article. While the Chicago Manual of Style is a significant work, it is not a rule on wiki and therefore irrelevant in this specific case. As this issue is of some significance for the entire WP:BIOG, I will forward a link to this discussion to their project page. 212.10.90.224 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that above policy does only mention the articles title, but it would be fair to say that an interpretation of that same policy to include both the body of the article and the infobox would fall inline with every Manual of Style ever written within the last two hundred years.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that Jojhutton has continued the discussion on talk of wikiproject biography (and its general significance to that project), I propose we continue any discussion over this matter there. Should anyone else be interested, the discussion is here. 212.10.90.224 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tributes on TV this weekend (US)

So far this is the channels I have found and thought it would be helpful to post for everyone wanting to see the tributes (history, specials, etc.)...

- VH1 - They stopped - don't know when
- MTV2 - They stopped - last evening
- Fuse - They are playing until Sunday, 2pm (EDT - I think?)
- VH1C - They are playing until Sunday, 9pm (EDT?)

If there are more, please add them here... thanks!

Updated NiteHacker (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Standard procedure when someone famous dies is for TV to whore out their corpse; nothing like a death to raise ratings... HalfShadow 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people like to see tributes... same as record sales going up and music sites getting bombarded! It's kind of like a mourning process for people. Everybody is different... some like it... some don't. Oh well... NiteHacker (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ not reliable?

TMZ broke the story of Jackson being rushed to hospital in the first place. TMZ correctly reported that Jackson was dead while "reliable" media outlets were reporting that he was lingering in a coma. TMZ first reported the demerol shot, which the family has since admitted to. Seems to me that they've been the most consistenty accurate regarding Jackson's death. So why do people insist on deleting anything that comes from, or traces back to, TMZ? Sounds like pure snobbery to me. Revmagpie (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And a broken watch tells the correct time twice a day. So? HalfShadow 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case that "broken watch" was right every time, and the fine chronometer was more often than not wrongRevmagpie (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why people won't accept TMZ? I don't like everything they say or do, but, for the most part, they DO seem to be reliable! Harvy Levin said they would NOT have posted the news if it were not true! I think Harvy Levin can be trusted, at least in my opinion. BTW, for those that don't know... TMZ is a subsidiary of AOL - if that makes any difference? NiteHacker (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a long discussion on this very issue taking place here Exploding Boy (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting discussion of the role of the Internet coverage in this Irish Times article. Normally, TMZ would not be a WP:RS, and its claim that MJ had died probably came from an anonymous tip-off from within the hospital. The LA Times report of MJ's death may well have come from a similar source, but because the LAT is part of the "mainstream" media, it was given more credence by other media organizations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that's mainly an Administrator board. Are regular users allowed to get into discussions or only if they are involved in the incident? NiteHacker (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones

There seems to be an SPA attempting to insert references to the above article into this article. He has done this across several articles. The GJ article itself controversial and poorly-sourced. I've removed the sentence, but would appreciate other opinions. Unitanode 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: The following post (TreadingWater 21.48) was accidentaly removed by another editor 2 minutes after it was posted. MickMacNee (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with this. I just carefully looked at that editor's contributions and he/she does not appear to be a SPA. Second, I am one of several editors who are knowledgeable about generations who make a point of including Generation Jones where appropriate since it is a newer generational construct and doesn’t have as established a presence here as earlier identified generations. All generations are the subject of some controversy and I would not say that Generation Jones is particularly controversial. Generation Jones has become quite established recently and is now referred to with some frequency in major media outlets like Newsweek, NBC, Time Magazine, etc. Wikipedia should reflect this growing popularity. Third, referencing Generation Jones in an article about Michael Jackson is entirely applicable and relevant, given Jackson’s status as a quintessential GenJoneser, and the key role that GenJones played in Jackson’s career (e.g. GenJonesers were the prime target audience for MTV in the 1980s and largely drove Jackson’s success in that era.TreadingWater (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's not used in the article or isn't suitable for the article... then it should be removed... as simple as that! NiteHacker (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think his sociological influence would need to be sourced rather more effectively than by journalistic opinion and blogs, from whomever they emanate. I don't see that it currently complies with WP:UNDUE. Rodhullandemu 22:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

These generations provide a very relavant context; seems obviously more upside than downside to include them.TreadingWater (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions aside, what is the reliable third party source that has made this comparison, if any? Rodhullandemu 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There are none. I've looked around, and no one has done this. In fact, GJ itself is something of a neologism, created less than 10 years ago, by a man named Jonathan Pontell. It does not appear to be even widely accepted in generational studies, at least as far as I can tell, but that's an argument for the page itself, not here. Unitanode 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

This article needs a new picture the current one is over a quarter of a century old, it' s a bit silly - we should have a more recent one, I tried putting another one and was told it wasn't clear enough, we need a clear recent one then... --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ above about recent pictures? NiteHacker (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tribute Sites

I know there are probably a bunch of tribute sites, I am sure, but here's a few I wanted to point out...

Sony's http://www.michaeljackson.com/ was changed to a tribute site now. You can also listen to music, view videos, read news (MJ related - don't know?) and also browse albums.

This is on Google as a sponsored site - http://www.michaeljacksonmemorialblog.com/ - only positive tributes allowed!
If you have negative remarks, you can post them here.

I don't know if any of these sites are going to forward the tributes to the family. I am hoping and guessing that Sony might.

If you know of any sites, feel free to post them here! Also, if you know that they are going to forward the tributes to the family, make a note of it with your post... Thanks! NiteHacker (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I doubt these would be considered appropriate and encyclopedic links, bearing in mind WP:EL and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Rodhullandemu 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not posting them to be included in the article... however, it would be nice if an exception allowance would be made for this and put into a section called 'Tributes'. I just posted this here for users coming here to see so that they can contribute. If you don't want this here, then feel free to remove it. NiteHacker (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise that, but I think here is OK, but not in the article. There's Google if people want to pay tribute. Rodhullandemu 18:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about a sentence

I have a few questions about this sentence from "1958–1975: Early life and The Jackson 5":

"From a young age Jackson claims he was physically and emotionally abused by his father, enduring incessant rehearsals, whippings and name-calling, but also contends that his father was a strict disciplinarian that played a large part in his success."

Leaving aside the fact that the verb tense needs to be changed, what is the role of "From a young age"? Is the sentence supposed to say that Jackson began making these claims at an early age? Or does the sentence simply mean that he claimed, at some point in his life, that his father abused him when he was a very young child?

The first ref for the sentence seems to imply the latter. The second ref doesn't point to a relevant page. Any clarification would be appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 21:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the latter as well. The first time he mentioned the beatings was in Moonwalk, I believe. I'll go change the sentence now. Pyrrhus16 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Songwriter?

Michael wrote or co-wrote at least half of the songs he performed. Should songwriter be added in his initial description in the first paragraph? Krobertj (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree unless recording artist in some way covers that. Vpuliva (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Recording artist covers all aspects of his recording career, inlucding singing, songwriting and producing. All of which are covered in the infobox under occupation. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Specific generations needed?

I don't think specific generation names are really that necessary to mention as the article intro is already so long. I think just saying his music and popularity span several generations or span generations from the 60s to the 00s or something to that liking would be sufficient and still signify the extents of his success. Vpuliva (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is pure article spam, it should not be there. MickMacNee (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is that spam? I don't get that at all. Specific generation names are absolutely relevant here; they don't take up much space and each generational moniker evokes numerous relevant variables.TreadingWater (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever that means. So far, it looks, and smells, like bollocks; unless we've stopped writing an encyclopedia, but I've been busy and perhaps missed that. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

citation needed

In section "Death"
"After four reported suicides over Jackson's death, the Jackson family issued the following statement:"
couldn't find any news about suicides related to Michael Jackson's death. is this true? should it be removed? --Miguelalmeidatorres (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

100 unreleased songs?

Is it true that michael said that he has over one hundred unreleased songs that he said would release for his children when he died? If so, I think that needs a major part of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.130.13 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Chamone

Why does Chamone redirect to Michael Jackson? Nowhere in the article nor in this discussion page is it spoken of Chanone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.30.180 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read this deleted material it may make the matter clearer. WWGB (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why is this article still locked? It seems like the edits made were in good faith,yet TMZ who is right most of the time and was right about MJ's death is still not enough of a reliable resource for Wikipedia. I think it is a case of power hungry admins locking the article just because they can,that and the fact that they want to tell everyone that they wrote or were in charge of one of the biggest stories ever,Michael Jackson's death. It is time to unlock the article,I mean its been almost 4 days since he died. Is it going to be locked forever? Or locked until after the toxicology reports come in? That way the admins and not us regular folk will get credit for being the first to edit why he died. I thought Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Apparently that is not true.--70.156.0.160 (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's not locked. It's only semi protected so that IPs cant edit it. Make an account and you'll be able to edit it in 3 days (or so) Corpx (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• 4 days. لennavecia 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Death sub-sub heading

Why is the "Death" section a sub-sub-heading under milestones and such? I'd think it more appropriate as a sub-heading under "Life and career", if not it's own L2 heading. Thoughts? لennavecia 04:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually went ahead and changed it. It can always be changed back if that's the consensus, but it seems entirely out of place as a subsection of Milestones, and it's not in line with what I believe is current practice. لennavecia 05:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

First vs. Firstly

Sorry to split hairs, but I was always taught that 'first', 'second' is preferable to 'firstly', 'secondly'. I'd rather bring it up here than change it and have it reverted. Thoughts?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)