Jump to content

Talk:Death of Michael Jackson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs)
172,064 edits
Restored comment re: Doctor Conrad Murray
Line 372: Line 372:
Lets list all the tribute shows/specials in all countries we can find as well as all newspaper articles(photos especially). --[[User:Cooly123|Cooly123]] ([[User talk:Cooly123|talk]]) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Lets list all the tribute shows/specials in all countries we can find as well as all newspaper articles(photos especially). --[[User:Cooly123|Cooly123]] ([[User talk:Cooly123|talk]]) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
* Let's not (photos especially, as they'll be copyrighted). <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
* Let's not (photos especially, as they'll be copyrighted). <b>[[User talk:Black Kite|<font color="black">Black Kite</font>]]</b> 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

== When will Conrad Murray get his own wikipedia entry? ==

Will wikipedia allow the creation of an entry specifically for / about Dr. Conrad Murray ? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.50.52.237|70.50.52.237]] ([[User talk:70.50.52.237|talk]]) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: No. [[User:Zazaban|Zazaban]] ([[User talk:Zazaban|talk]]) 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
::Yes. [[User:Portillo|Portillo]] ([[User talk:Portillo|talk]]) 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Murray doesn't seem notable enough to warrant his own article. Lately his name's been popping up more and more, but only in relation to the death of Michael Jackson, so I'd say the article addressing that death is the best place to shed light on the physician – at least until further developments. [[User:Digitelle|Digitelle]] ([[User talk:Digitelle|talk]]) 01:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::::I think it's inevitable that he'll have his own article. We'll just need to keep a very close eye on it BLP-wise. <font color="green">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="pink">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|contribs]]</font></sup></small> 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::I agree on this one. Was Jackson administered a death-inducing drug? By whom? And surely a physician should know that you cannot provide CPR effectively on a bed? [[User:WWGB|WWGB]] ([[User talk:WWGB|talk]]) 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


== business side of MJ ==
== business side of MJ ==

Revision as of 01:52, 30 June 2009


Merge proposal

I'm boldly archiving this as there is no consensus likely due to the recentism of his death. I suggest seeing where things are in a few weeks but realistically this has been top page news worldwide so a preponderance of news sources are avalable and the death - with the reactions to it - certainly meets notability threshold. -- Banjeboi 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Merge

  • But keeping it in the main article will encourage only noteworthy details to be included; much of what's in this article can easily be cut because it's just not very important. I would guess each of the current sections could be cut down to a single sentence in the main article. Rnb (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly! Also note that SV has yet to touch the main article since this death article was created. We can't be going back and forth between the two articles, checking to make sure important pieces are covered. Groink (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how few biographies have separate articles for death, I'm not sure how that's what's always done. This is a big deal only because Michael Jackson was a popular topic for the media. There was nothing particularly notable about his death in and of itself. Why it should have its own article, much less an article with head-scratching details like the text of a 911 phone call that doesn't impart any new information, or a section about his family that reads like an obituary, is beyond me. But now I've made my arguments and I'll take my leave. Good luck, everyone. Rnb (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I changed my mind. Merge the information to the appropriate section on his page and then if the section grows enough, we can recreate it here. Just wait until we get real details on his death first, try waiting a week or two. VG Editor (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Separate articles for the death of famous people would be opening a can of worms. A section pertaining to the death of such people can be accomodated into the main article. Any sentiment for a separate article is mainly due to the emotional impact of Jackon's loss. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect. There's no good reason, aside from recentism and celebrity idolization, to assume the need for a separate article. Far better to build the section here and if needed spin out later, but avoid any sort of trend-setting if possible. Such material as the 911 transcript are filler and not needed for responsible, well-written coverage. Once the autospy's done ,the lawsuits adjudicated, and the dust settles, we may have enough fro an article, but 30+hours of rabid media frenzy isn't the same as real facts to examine. ThuranX (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All the information about his death should be in the main article. Whereas if you have information about his career over the years which might take up a lot of space, then a separate article is needed.Roman888 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm still trying to figure out why this was speedy deleted, than and brought back again, with no discussion at AfD. Why was it not allowed to go through the AfD process? I am tempted to nominate it myself, I think this discussion needs to be brought out into the open.--Susan118 talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge

  • Don't merge. The main Michael Jackson Article is too long for this to possibly be incorporated into it.Because I say within Days if not Weeks there will be more news on this matter.This can be used to contain the ongoing details as they come to the table.Gross. Advertize (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. This is a major historic event affecting millions, possibly billions of people around the world. If there is a "death of princess diana" wiki page then surely there should be one for Michael. The ABC news story of him addicted to a drug could result in enormous controversy and stories.Arharris04 10:47 June 2009 (EST)
  • Don't merge. We clearly need a separate article, as this is going to run and run. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. It's too early. More information will most likely come to light. I suggest don't merge now, but review in another month or so. Karl2620 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:NOTCRYSTAL). We don't go around creating articles in anticipation that more information will follow. Wikipedia is a REACTIVE system - we create articles based on information that already exists on the Internet. groink 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. I think that this is jumping to conclusions suggesting this article be merged. It was just created about an hour ago, and this is a big current event, that has generated a lot of reaction worldwide over the last 24 hours. I agree with Karl2620 to wait until later to decide.Neospaceblue2 (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge. As stated in the News Management section of this article, a ton of people are looking online for information about Michael Jackson's death (Hell, Wikipedia crashed because of it). I realize that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, but there's definitely going to be more information soon — an autopsy is scheduled, after all. I think we should keep this article indefinitely. Dkl1456 (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

But see, that's the thing, it's a media event. That doesn't mean it merits an article in an encyclopedia. --Susan118 talk 03:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand The reason for MJ's death is highly uncertain and news outlets are offering different versions for the cause of his death. It's not like a 'simple' car accident was behind the incident, and the cause for his death itself has been a source for discussion online. More details will emerge in the coming days and moving all that info to the MK's page would be unwise. --Roaring Siren (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand -- This is a major cultural event and I was honored to be the first one to break news of his incident on Wikipedia. This is significant just like the Death of John Lennon, Death of Princess Diana, and such. He was a cultural icon. Just see how numerous websites crashed upon news of his death, and all the memorials and rememberances of MJ in the past few days. Even some TV shows added in the death (EastEnders), and also his record sales boosted. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

  • Keep - His death, overtime will become quite something huge. It's only really been two days, give it time. There will be more info. Just keep and expand it. -- R32GTR (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the rush, honestly? The "death" section was getting very long in the Michael Jackson article. Wait until the rush dies down and we can then decide whether to keep or merge. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major event and expansion possible as more news is learnt. MJ's article is an FA and if it is cluttered with with the news of his death, it will become untidy and of a poor quality as well as unstable owing to edit warring, disputes etc. Also, this article, if expanded can be made a GA or even an FA. Regards, Pmlinediter  Talk 08:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wait, though leaning strongly toward merge. How many celebrities have separate articles regarding their deaths? My guess is that it's rare, and would be appropriate if the circumstances prove to be extraordinary. My question is whether this is necessary to cover the actual event, or is a response to the coverage and understandable grief. JNW (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article will eventually be created anyway, we might as well keep it and work on improving it right away. First off I would recommend a picture other than of Michael Jackson himself for the lead. Perhaps a picture of a memorial of Jackson, or of fans mourning — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 09:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The section will be too long if to be merged with the main article, Princess Diana death was made an article, why shouldn't Michael Jackson ? Jackson is even more popular than Diana & Elvis. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge / Keep as more and more news is raising uncertainty about his death, the Michael Jackson article itself is already quite long and getting longer by the hour, and a separate "death" article allows for an easier way to find the latest information. I'm sort of shocked this is even up for discussion this long. Utopianheaven (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. This is clearly an event that will be remembered throughout history. Michael Jackson was a centerpiece in millions of peoples lives and will never be forgotten. Also, this is an ongoing news article, billions of people are interested in this story, it is subject to enormous controversy. R.I.P Michael. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93ol11 (talk • contribs)

This template must be substituted.

Comments

  • Comment: there's precedence for this article not to exist. Take a look at Elvis Presley's death section. Even HE does not have a separate article about his death. And believe me - Elvis' death was just as big as Michael's. groink 02:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think most people are "voting" under the assumption that the article is going to be kept permanently. I believe that the article should definitely be kept for at least a week or so, so that there is a place to keep track of the information as the event progresses. This also includes miscellanea, which are notable details (And would otherwise clutter the main article, which is big enough already). Once the event dies down, by all means, merge this article. --unsigned
  • Comment: Sure, I understand the policies. But why merge then unmerge an article in a matter of hours or a few days? Info is coming in thick and fast, there are suggestions of drug overdoses, drug addiction etc. Likely there will be contest over his will, maybe some other controversy. I know WP is not a crystal ball, but the page is here now. Just wait a few weeks and the right choice should be apparent. Karl2620 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do you not know the history of Elvis' death? The guy overdosed on drugs, and was found sitting on the toilet at Graceland. And still, he does NOT have a separate article about his death. You entire POV is that something WILL be controversial. Once again, Wikipedia is not to be used on a pro-active basis, i.e. prepare for the worst, and then cut back if nothing happens. We don't operate like this here. groink 02:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and this is going to be just as big. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for her article is that she DID die under unusual circumstances. The photographers... The driver being drunk... The fact that it wasn't natural... I'll repeat - we're not allowed to create articles under the guideline of speculation about the future. groink 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia wasn't around when Elvis died, and you are proposing an article be killed before it has a chance to be properly developed. researching and building an article takes time. Karl2620 (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fairly sure that if Wikipedia had been around during Elvis' death, an article would have been made (Temporarily, that is). I suggest that the same thing be done for Michael Jackson's death. Despite Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, it is undoubtedly a major information source. Many people flock to Wikipedia for information on current events (I'm one of those people, I can't remember the last time I opened a newspaper). I think we should keep this article temporarily, until the topic "dies down." Dkl1456 (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:At least keep the article for now. If nothing else, it will serve as a draft for a large section about Michael's death in his own article when all details regarding his death, funeral procedures, will and estate affairs, etc. are gathered and reported. By having this here now, it means everybody who has new citated information can add it and it can be scrutinized by the Wikipedia community. However, as monumental as this event is (I'm as big a Michael Jackson fan as the next person) I do feel that once enough general information has been retrieved, a merge with Michael's own article would be the best way to go. Mc8755 (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit proposal

{{editsemiprotected}}

Request

Please edit the introductory sentence from "Jackson died aged 50 at his rented home in Los Angeles" to "Jackson died aged 50 at his rented home in Los Angeles, California" as to also include the link(s) to the location.

I added and wikilinked California. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 09:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete request*

Please delete the breaking news part regarding TMZ.com since the death of a pop star has absolutely no connection with the "free" commercial of a news-celebrity-gossip portal. It is outrageous.

"Breaking news

News of Jackson's death was broken by TMZ.com, a Los Angeles-based celebrity news website. Jackson was pronounced dead at 2.26pm, and 18 minutes later at 2.44pm, the website posted: "Michael Jackson passed away today at the age of 50."[5]"

  • Delete request*
No. The fact - in and of itself - that a tabloid "got it right the first time" is newsworthy enough. Orethrius (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated PostMortem Music Sales

A lot of the information under "Record Sales" is already outdated. "Jackson's record sales increased dramatically in the hours following his death. His album Thriller climbed to number one on the American iTunes music chart, and another eight made it into the top 40.[26] In the UK, where he would have performed in less than three weeks, his albums occupied 14 of the top 20 places on the Amazon.co.uk sales chart, with Off The Wall topping the chart."

This article has information a bit more recent, http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i344418db676344f0d77ca668d6cc4a43

But I think things are going to keep changing over the next week or so. I'm not complaining about this or anything, but just saying that whoever is interested in editing the article should be on the look out for these new figures. They seem amazingly noteworthy.

Children

  • Comment: 3rd para, 2nd to last sentence says Jackson "fathered" 3 children. They are not his biological kids, so I don't think that's an accurate description of how the children came to be.
We don't say whether he was the biological father or not. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

Just curious, I know the wiki project has rules. Why is there articles about artists who basically released an album, had no success, got some small publicity in a local paper, and yet that qualifies them to have an article? Yet I am no fanatic MJ fan (I did like his old stuff) and yet this article about his death is considered controversial even when it is all over international media for the past 24 hours? There seems to be something really lacking in the rules of Wiki when somebody nobody heard of gets an article and yet a person who was known all over the world and who's death gets non stop coverage is denied?76.118.224.35 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's people not looking ahead. We're bound to end up with separate articles on the death, the funeral, the investigation, and on and on. I suspect it's the editors of Michael Jackson who want to see the traffic directed there instead, though I can't think why, because it's making a dog's breakfast of a featured article. Far better to direct it to a new page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a strange confluence of edits, allegedly by two different accounts [1] [2]. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*slaps WWGB for not noticing that one of those isn't an actual account* Honestly, if you're going to go after Slim, please do better than pointing out a failure to log in. Orethrius (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: spelling "Demerol" not "Demorol" (first paragraph), pls revise.

Thank you! SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any question? When will Michael Jackson's remains be cremated? What date and time?

After his death, Michael Jackson's remains will be cremated on unknown date and time.

Don't we know about his cremation on date and time?

Jackson wanted to have his body preserved in plastic [3]. WWGB (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it would be something crazy...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no business like showbusiness, like no business I know. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a far from reliable source.... and it says "considering". Besides, any source that speculates that "Jackson's nose, which has famously received a series of surgical interventions, was already plastinated enough to not require any further work." should not be taken too seriously in my opinion. Yintaɳ  23:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying I'm taking any sides in this whole plastination thing, but there are plenty of other websites that reported on this. The source above is a little dated, but here's one that a decent site published the day after Jackson's death. Digitelle (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a claim by the plastinator alone, not confirmed by anybody else. I don't believe a word of it. And if he was in as bad a physical shape as reports claim he was, a plastinated Jackson will not be a pretty sight. Not to mention the two autopsies on top of that. Anyway, time will tell. But I suggest you don't hold your breath ;-) Another thing, your "decent site" claims that "Bubbles, his late pet monkey was plastinated a number of years ago". That's interesting because Bubbles is still alive[4]... Yintaɳ  00:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry about that; I wasn't sure about the status of Bubbles since he left Neverland. From what I've seen of the site it wasn't a bad source, but I guess that was a pretty sloppy mistake. Still, I'm not taking a side in this, and if you ask me, it seems a little creepy that they'd exhibit MJ, I just thought I'd present a more recent update on that topic. But I'm sure it won't be much longer before we know the verdict on his last wishes. Digitelle (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking sides either but since the media are now so eager to publish any scrap of information about MJ, no matter how irrelevant or far-fetched, I think WP should be very careful with quotes and sources. Mind you, I'm not blaming you for pointing to them, I'm just doubting the sources. (I'd like to see a better source for the "leaked autopsy report" too, for example. That Sun tabloid is not exactly a monument of reliability.) Yintaɳ  09:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty skeptical of the autopsy report myself. TMZ.com released a quote from the Los Angeles Coroner dispelling the leak as a fake though, so I removed it from the article. Digitelle (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

Guys, just a note about the writing (not that anyone's going to pay attention, but here it is anyway). Five things mainly:

  • 1) There is no need to put everything in quotes. X said that she is "devastated," while Y said she, "couldn't stop crying," and Z said she "couldn't believe it." Totally unnecessary and hard to read.
  • 2) There is no need to quote every single celebrity who has said something meaningless, because that will shortly be half the planet.
  • 3) There is no need to state the obvious e.g. if X asked for a moment of silence in Congress, there's no need to write, "X spoke about Jackson and asked for a moment of silence." Of course they spoke about him first. They wouldn't jump up and simply announce a moment of silence.
  • 4) There is no need for "allegedly," or "reportedly" all the time, when it doesn't matter. If Taylor herself said she was packing her bags when she heard, that's what she was doing, so far as anyone will ever know, and who cares anyway. If Madonna said she wanted to dance with him in London, that's what she wanted.
I'm sorry, but this article reads like a gossip column instead of a work of encyclopedic importance. There is no need to talk about every bit of juicy detail. The thoughts of a nanny and her allegations are written as a tabloid column -- and that's just one example. This article should be much shorter and stick to the facts that have become of permanent importance to the subject matter. Wikipedia may be instantaneously updatable, but it is not your source of the latest news (and certainly not a place to aggregate the latest speculation). It should be a record of the facts that are lasting and that err on the side of academic. If you want entertainment news and gossip, look to the many other sources for that. Am I the only person who feels this way?69.229.111.161 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. But, this sort of thing is what happens every time someone notable dies (in proportion to notability). Steveozone (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record sales

9 Michael's albums are on first 9 positions. Someone could wrote bout it cause there's only information they're in top 40.

Record sales on Amazon.com

please on Amazon.com you can see that MJ records occupy 16 places in the top 16 please write it, thanks here is the link

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/music/ref=pd_ts_zgc_m_music_display_on_website_more?pf_rd_p=482110191&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=5174&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1HR639DKARF616YQ0FEE

I had noticed that myself before you pointed it out. However, the information at that link is updated every hour, so I don't know if it's really a valid source. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the stats are qualified as to time posted, it may be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But how do we post a link so readers can verify it for themselves? Even right now, positions 15 and 16 are no longer held by Jackson. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make a note in the citation of the date and time of retrieval and that the content at the link is ever shifting. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 12 years since a death received such huge attention from media and public

Shouldn't something in the article be added to to point out the fact that there hasn't been anywhere near as much attention given to a death since that of Diana, Princess of Wales? How about the fact that it virtually stopped coverage of Farrah Fawcett's death? Those points are relevant to understanding what a massive event Jackson's death was. Information yes (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana was a royal and the death of such an icon was not expected and the grief was a matter of course. Jackson on the other hand was a recluse.(redacted per WP:Talk) Her Imperial Highness (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should let reliable sources lede in this regard, same as with album sales and other notable information. This helps us remain NPOV. When the New York Times, or similar news outlet, notes this as big as Diana's outpouring then we state "_____ noted this as ____". -- Banjeboi 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "recluse" does not plan 50 concert performances as Jackson was planning. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

something to read

More goulishness for those who want to know. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "... investigators conducting the autopsy were also surprised at how healthy Jackson was."
"Healthy"?
He's dead!
That's not "healthy."
Grundle2600 (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grundle, they were noting a healthy state of only a part of the body at time of death. Please hold back on the personal observations. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes Sales

I made this pic from screen shots of iTunes USA, I feel it better conveys the massive sales at present. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MJ_ITUNES_SALES.jpg Mc8755 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD

Could someone show mercy and unbold the descriptive article title in the lead, per MOS:BOLD (please see also WP:BOLDITIS). 84.44.143.160 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)  Done--Unitanode 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 84.44.143.160 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Unfortunately, someone unfamiliar with the MoS undid the edit. I've left them a message, but the user appears to be offline. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Public figures' statements

I really don't have a opinion, either way would be fine to me. Is the statements made by these artists—with respective reliable sources, obviously—necessary? Sparks Fly 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are. They, along with the family section that reads like an obituary, make the article seem more like a memorial than an enyclopedia article. That this article is essentially one big puff piece, though, doesn't bode well for them being trimmed. Rnb (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few of the statements can be kept. The rest should go on WikiQuote. Pyrrhus16 16:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Set-up a wikiquote farm for these - there will be hundreds only a handful of which should be of any help here. -- Banjeboi 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these celebrity and other quotes have any encyclopedic worth at this time, other than perhaps Liza Minnelli saying, "When the autopsy comes, all hell's going to break loose..."AP.. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for now (Quotations from public figures)

Following Jackson's death, many public figures gave press statements.

"I am heartbroken. My prayers go out to the Jackson family, and my heart goes out to his children. Let us remember him for his unparalleled contribution to the world of music, his generosity of spirit in his quest to heal the world and the joy he brought to his millions of devoted fans throughout the world. I feel blessed to have performed with him several times and to call him my friend. No artist will ever take his place. His star will shine forever."

-Mariah Carey[1]

"I am absolutely devastated at this tragic and unexpected news. For Michael to be taken away from us so suddenly at such a young age, I just don't have the words. Divinity brought our souls together on The Wiz and allowed us to do what we were able to throughout the 80's. To this day, the music we created together on "Off The Wall," "Thriller" and "Bad" is played in every corner of the world and the reason for that is because he had it all…talent, grace, professionalism and dedication. He was the consummate entertainer and his contributions and legacy will be felt upon the world forever. I've lost my little brother today, and part of my soul has gone with him."

-Quincy Jones[2]

"I can't stop crying over the sad news. I have always admired Michael Jackson. The world has lost one of the greats, but his music will live on forever! My heart goes out to his three children and other members of his family. God bless."

-Madonna[3]

"I feel privileged to have hung out and worked with Michael. He was a massively talented boy man with a gentle soul. His music will be remembered forever and my memories of our time together will be happy ones."

-Paul McCartney[4]

"I can't stop crying, this is too sudden and shocking. I am unable to imagine this. My heart is hurting. I am in prayer for his kids and the family."

-Diana Ross[5]

"A friend of Michael's for the last 35 years, I call on people around the world to pray for him and his family in the hour. I have known Michael since we were both teens, worked with him, marched for him, hosted him at our House of Justice headquarters in New York, and we joined together to eulogize our mutual idol, James Brown. I have known him at his high moments and his low moments and I know he would want us to pray for his family."

-Al Sharpton[6]

"I was so excited to see his show in London. We were going to be on tour in Europe at the same time and I was going to fly in to see him. He has been an inspiration throughout my entire life and I'm devastated he's gone!"

-Britney Spears[7]

"My heart... my mind...are broken. I loved Michael with all my soul and I can't imagine life without him. We had so much in common and we had such loving fun together. I was packing up my clothes to go to London for his opening when I heard the news. I still can't believe it. I don't want to believe it. It can't be so. He will live in my heart forever but it's not enough. My life feels so empty. I don't think anyone knew how much we loved each other. The purest most giving love I've ever known. Oh God! I'm going to miss him. I can't yet imagine life without him. But I guess with God's help ... I'll learn. I keep looking at the photo he gave me of himself, which says, 'To my true love Elizabeth, I love you forever.' And, I will love HIM forever."

-Elizabeth Taylor[8]

"I can't find the words right now to express how deeply sadden [sic] I am by Michael's passing. We have lost a genius and a true ambassador of not only Pop music, but of all music. He has been an inspiration to multiple generations and I will always cherish the moments I shared with him on stage and all of the things I learned about music from him and the time we spent together. My heart goes out to his family and loved ones."

-Justin Timberlake[9]


I've removed these as causing more harm than good. Reach consensus in which, if any, are encyclopedic and worthy of including otherwise this certainly will be a WP:quote farm. -- Banjeboi 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes from Quincy Jones and Paul McCartney should be put back in, as their relationship with him is much older and solid than that of the other people. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from QJ and PM may be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations from people should be introduced and explained in the prose through the personal or professional relationship with each of those people. Quotations by other people should be removed, as they are a natural source of perennial contention and since their encyclopedic value is very near nil. 84.44.143.160 (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Note the professional relationships in the text. Cite them if challenged. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Truth be told, Taylor's quote could also be ok, they go way back. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree here. Certainly, Taylor, McCartney, and Jones should stay, but the others? Not so much. Unitanode 19:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my perspective, and now beleive these should not be included, in the manner they are presented here, because
  • Wikipedia editors are not judges of the level of personal relationships between one individual and another.
  • The body of the text does not currently convey a need for these quotes.
  • Each one of these quotes may be better suited elsewhere.
  • It is uneccessary to list every celebrity that comments on Michael's death. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some may be helpful if trimmed way back and integrated as we would any other article. Much of this seems filler, no disrespect intended, and pretty much what you would expect someone to say. It may be wisest to see what other things occur over the next few days and what mainstream media report as notable people in Jackson's life. Quincy Jones would be obvious for their long-term working together. I would use "To this day, the music we created [...] is played in every corner of the world [...]. He was the consummate entertainer and his contributions and legacy will be felt upon the world forever." -- Banjeboi 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--just make sure that the mainstream media that you pull from are verifiable sources, and not The Onion. And as you said... "as we would any other article"... which is why I said "these should not be included, in the manner they are presented here". I do agree that "some" could be integrated... but how many is some? Two, three, four, five? I would think that three (if they are well integrated and trimmed) is a fair compromise. Also, when I made mention of them being more suited to other articles... the one that stood out in my mind was Macartney's quote... it would be a good match for the Say, Say, Say article in my opinion. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw that we just include the quote of Al Sharpton, because he was the one to first talk to the press about the death of Jackson. --User:Jonverve/sig2 23:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I just added the quote from Al Sharpton and details about him talking to the media first, with this edit here. If you don't like it, please comment on your thoughts, and don't just delete it. User:Jonverve/sig2 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I still think this Sharpton quote belongs in the media coverage area, not grief section -- just because other celebrities comments are here, does not mean this should be, remember this was an actual press conference, not just a quote carried by a news agency. User:Jonverve/sig2 12:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tributes

Lets list all the tribute shows/specials in all countries we can find as well as all newspaper articles(photos especially). --Cooly123 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When will Conrad Murray get his own wikipedia entry?

Will wikipedia allow the creation of an entry specifically for / about Dr. Conrad Murray ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.237 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Zazaban (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Portillo (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Murray doesn't seem notable enough to warrant his own article. Lately his name's been popping up more and more, but only in relation to the death of Michael Jackson, so I'd say the article addressing that death is the best place to shed light on the physician – at least until further developments. Digitelle (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's inevitable that he'll have his own article. We'll just need to keep a very close eye on it BLP-wise. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this one. Was Jackson administered a death-inducing drug? By whom? And surely a physician should know that you cannot provide CPR effectively on a bed? WWGB (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

business side of MJ

From Bloomberg. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful, Gwen, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews templates

Uncle G, having multiple Wikinews templates looks very ugly. Could you choose one spot instead? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did. You've moved that spot from its original position, at the heads of the level-two sections where they originally were, twice. I've had to revert your bold rearrangements, which moved the links to entirely the wrong places, twice now. Please stop breaking the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You posted Wikinews templates in multiple sections, and they look awful. Can you please restore it to being in just one spot, as it was when the article started? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. In this revision of the article, there were exactly two templates, with links appropriate to the sections that they were in. You have broken this arrangement twice, now. You've moved a whole load of links from the "reactions" section, where they belong, into the "record sales" section, where they clearly do not. You've even mangled the markup. You changed the original layout and broke things. I'm trying to repair the damage that you've caused, bringing the article back to how it was before you broke things, whilst preserving your intent with the images.I repeat, please stop breaking the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This was your edit, which resulted in six Wikinews templates, practically one in every section. I'm not breaking the article. I'm trying to write it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That was my first attempt to fix your breaking of the article, constructively reverting your damage by putting the links back against the text that they belonged whilst preserving your apparent intent with the image placements. I was not the only editor to fix your breakage. Another editor had to clean up some of your mess here. Make no mistake: You have broken the article. The markup for one Wikinews link is now wrong, where it was previously correct. The links are in a completely inappropriate section, whereas before they were each in the section relevant for the link. And no, edits like this and this are not writing. You've been removing verifiable information and breaking the article, not writing at all. You removed the information that it is not known whether Jackson has a will, and you removed the information about Internet traffic levels being unchanged, and the analyses of the same with respect to the Twitter reports of Jackson's death. You even made the article less verifiable, by removing a citation that supported content, the Keating citation, and replacing it with completely different citation, which does not in fact support the content that it is now against. This is not writing. This is damage. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please stop the insults. I am writing it and copy editing it to avoid repetition, and removing unnecessary citations. I removed your six Wikinews templates because they looked bad and aren't needed. We also shouldn't be promoting Wikinews to that extent -- one template, fine, but there's no need for more than one. That's all I'm going to say because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • These are descriptions of your actions, not insults. And you are well advised to pay them good heed. You are causing damage, removing information, breaking markup, and causing citations to be incorrect. You have made the article worse with those edits, not better. Readers are given less information, the article is less verifiable, and markup is a mess. And all in the name of "style" and "tidiness". Stop breaking the article, and stop owning it in the face of everyone else. You're now edit-warring with other editors over the use of boldface. Once again: This is not writing. It's style-nitpicking, and it is actually damaging the article proper along the way. Now, are you going to fix your own damage, putting back the citations that you erased and the verifiable information and sourced analyses that you removed when you were "tidying"? Uncle G (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

Does anyone have a view on using this article from the Daily Mail as a source? I know people have objected to it in the past because it's a tabloid, but I find it tends to be accurate. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's already being used so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIspellings

The word "memorabilia" in the article needs correction on the "Personal Advisers" entry. Cobolsaurus (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Cobolsaurus[reply]

I think it's fixed now, thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

There seems to be confusion about the first sentence. We always bold the titles. Some editors have pointed to articles where it doesn't happen e.g. death of Diana, but that is because the title isn't used in the first sentence. It is better to use it, but not necessary. When it is used, we bold it, and the practice is to do it without a wikilink. See WP:LEAD#Format of the first sentence. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not obliged to have the title in the first sentence. We could simply say, "Michael Jackson died on" etc. See here. This may be better than "the death of MJ occurred," which is kind of odd English. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further link. I note the statement therein that "If the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface", which could apply in this case. Anyway, I like the latest approach much better. WWGB (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do too. I only wrote it the previous way because that's what usually done, but we're not obliged to stick to it where it makes the writing sound awkward. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having read talk page exchanges surrounding the issue of boldface links (such as the current formatting). I'd like to be a stickler dick about it, but cannot find it anywhere in the MoS. found it. Regardless, I still believe the current version is the sanest compromise. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has changed it, unfortunately. I'm not going to change it back myself, but if someone else wants to, I won't object. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been changed back again for now. This may continue, because many don't know that (imho sensible) point of the MoS, yet. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending upgrade to "C" class

This article now appears to be "C" class rather than "Start". What do others think? Majoreditor (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm upgrading the article to "C". Majoreditor (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor left?

I see that Personal physician Reverend Jesse Jackson stated that the doctor left the scene, but this is not stated previously in the section. Did the doctor leave and when? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flashmob

Would it be appropriate to mention the Liverpool Street flashmob here? It did get coverage in RSes, and was reportedly very large for a flashmob. Sceptre (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on the internet

I think the section effect of the death of Michael Jackson on the internet deserves all of our attention. Furthermore, it is my belief this section should be split into a whole new article, particularly when it seems to me this is in fact a new kind of phenomenon. Not only Michael Jackson's death crashed some websites but also it did slow down the internet's biggest search engine which is made of a worldwide network of clusters (i think the biggest one in the world). Not only this is an interesting phenomenon from the cultural point of view, but it is in my opinion also a very interesting phenomenon for areas such as computer science, sociology and many other fields that are related to the internet as a whole. Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for a month before writing about this. I think the alleged impact upon the Internet was approximately 100% hype. The Google News outage was reported today to have been because the Google machines interpreted the heavy traffic as a DDOS attack. If you'll remember, the news websites of the world were not nearly as impacted by Michael Jackson as they were on 9/11/01. Tempshill (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In fact, I kind of take issue with the line in the article that reads: "Although individual websites and servers were affected, the Internet as a whole remained largely unaffected." No s**t Sherlock. The Internet does not exist "as a whole". And as we've seen in this case and in many before it, the endpoints overload well before the infrastructure does. Mbarbier (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of drive to UCLA Medical

According to Google Maps the drive from Michael Jackson's home to UCLA Medical should take 8 minutes, but an article of the German newspaper Bild claims that the paramedics drove there from shortly after 12:30 pm to 1:14 pm. Does anyone know why it took them so long, or is shortly after 12:30 pm simply wrong (I could not find other sources)? --Dwi Secundus (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ever been to LA? Ever had to come up with a quick excuse why you were late? There's a reason why Google Maps is not a reliable source (let alone the first day's dispatches from any reporter, any newspaper, anywhere). Steveozone (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first user above has a point. This is an ambulance with lights going. Cars should pull over. The route suggests Hilgard, going along east side of the campus, but that's a little narrow. If he takes Sunset, S Beverly Glen, Wilshire, then north on Westwood Bvld into the medical center, the streets are plenty wide. At 1 pm, not rush hour, it shouldn't be so congested at even an ambulance can't get through. 15 minutes, tops. SBHarris 02:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent research. I would agree with that assessment, but of course, it's original research. Additionally, there is more to the question posed than how much time the trip would take. There is also the question of the reliability of the time of departure and arrival reported by Bild, which is looking fairly unreliable. Steveozone (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article necesary?

Is it?--77.46.174.197 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the wisdom of the masses, apparently yes. 84.44.140.9 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, everything that is of actual substance (probably a paragraph's worth) could be summed up in the main article.--Susan118 talk 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please present a draft of that proposed paragraph below, I'd be interested to see what you think that would look like. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you guys missed the section at the top of the talk page (see here, and click on SHOW drop down box, tons of peoples comments are in there). The decision of an admin was to hold off on any merger, since this is developing, and certainly meets notability. User:Jonverve/sig2 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think 77.46.174.197 aimed at things beyond wikipedia process. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

The main picture of michael jackson should be more recent, to show what he looked like closer to his death, more importantly after his surgeries. 81.157.51.16 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Michael Jackson FAQ: "Wikipedia has strict rules regarding the use of pictures. Pictures must be "free" or have a sufficient Fair Use Rationale for their inclusion in the article. Please note, you cannot simply take "Fair Use" pictures from other articles and bring them here. A new "Fair Use Rationale" must be provided for every article a picture is used on. Furthermore, as long as we have a free image, fair-use images are almost impossible to justify." TheLeftorium 22:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash issue

I've removed this because it's phrased unpleasantly, and there is only one source (the nanny), who was clearly upset when she spoke. Also, it would be quite normal to want to secure a large amount of cash lying around in a home in the event of a loved one dying. It has been published in the News International publications.

"Grace Rwaramba, Jackson's former nanny, who was in London at the time of his death, said that she had talked with Jackson family members over the phone as she was boarding a plane to come home, who said, "'Grace, you remember Michael used to hide cash at the house? I'm here. Where can it be?'. Rwaramba responded with, "I told them to look in the garbage bags and under the carpets. But can you believe that? They just lost Michael a few hours ago and already one of them is calling me to know where the money is!""

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. Mariah Carey's published reaction to the event was far more cogent and entertaining, and we've not yet heard from the pizza deliveryman. Steveozone (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added that, but i dont mind if its removed. Portillo (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK newspaper used as a "reliable source" for "standard US medical practice"

Murray did not sign the death certificate, as would reportedly be standard practice.[13][14]

COMMENT: A journalist writing for The Guardian, London newspaper, is not a reliable source what "would reportedly be standard practice" in medicine in the US. In fact, the statement is wrong-- it is NOT standard practice for an attending physician who has no idea of what has caused an unexpected death to sign a death certificate, which would include cause(s) of death! So, I've removed the statement once more. If somebody wants to insert the fact the the UK Newpaper The Guardian, in its august medico-legal opinion, thinks that standard US practice in California would be for the doctor to sign the California death certificate, then that would be properly referenced and sourced for the information given. SBHarris 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally in the U.S. newspapers, and in multiple sources, though none of them explained (that I saw) quite what was meant. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be because none of them quite understood what they were talking about. You'll have to quote one so I can tell you. An unexpected death of a patient which occurs right in front of a physician's face, at home, in a 50 year-old person who neither has a terminal condition nor in a hospice program, will be a "coroner's case." (Here actually a "medical examiner's case," since L.A. County uses a medical examiner-- perhaps the most famous M.E. in the country given the celebrities who have passed through that morgue. Marylin Monroe, Bobby Kennedy, etc, etc). In such a case, the physician can write whatever they like on a death certificate, but such a document will merely be re-written and a new ammended death certificate issued, after the medical examiner finishes up. All physicians know this, and also that by filling out such a thing they have nothing to gain, but potentially a great deal legally to lose. Signing a certificate in such a case would be (at best) pointless and (at worst) criminal (if what we suspect happened, happened). Even if his physician hadn't touched him and Michael Jackson had fallen over of a real M.I., it would not have been standard medical procedure to sign a death certificate to that effect, since the physician would have no way at all of suspecting the cause. So anyway, you can keep this statement in the article if you like (I've said my piece here). However, be advised that its continued existence in the article only makes Wikipedia and its use of "reliable sources" and (in paricular) its judgement of what a "reliable source" for information like this IS, look really silly. It's a lovely example of an expert ignored while citing non-expert sources in a way which hides the fact that they ARE non-expert sources. SBHarris 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple articles from the satiral publication The Onion

I don't know if these should be mentioned in the article or not, but I'm posting them here to see what anyone else thinks.

This article, which was published 4 years ago, says that the real Michael Jackson died in the mid 1980s, and that the person who has claimed to be Jackson since then is an imposter. The article uses this to explain why his looks, music, and personality changed so much since then.

This article, which just came out, reports on his recent death, saying that he was 12 years old at the time, and describes him as "a talented child performer known for his love of amusement park rides and his hobby of collecting exotic animals."

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really appropriate, in my view. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, WP has no "funny section" for such and no matter what your (or anybody's) opinion (including mine) on him is, it might be appropriate to at least wait till he is buried and put to rest before suggesting humoresque additions.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Even after his burial, these would be highly questionable content for this article. Although, they could be added to The Onion article itself, since that is their source, as a sampling of their quotations. This is an article about the actual Death of Michael Jackson; not an article on humor. Since the onion is a satirical medium, it really has no place here, in my opinion. I am in agreement with SlimVirgin 208.119.72.6 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy

I'm not sure what to do about the autopsy report published by a British tabloid, The Sun. [5] It's being published elsewhere, but so far it's always The Sun being cited. Should we use it? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More mainstream newspapers are picking it up, so I've added a section. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's delete this section, come on, you don't actually believe some of the Sun's stories do you? It's a joke! Stuff about Bigfoot backing Hillary Clinton in the elections, Hitler and Stalin are alive and are lovers, alien cats, Elvis sightings, didn't they have BatBoy? This stuff is insane! I think it's a definite delete. ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 09:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting mixed up with some other tabloid. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think he is. That's more the Sunday Sport's area. Yintaɳ  10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it only we'll remove exact details, so it'll be "..The sun broke news of a supposed autopsy report leak, later proven wrong of correct...." Good? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should go until a second source, that is not just quoting The Sun, can be found. So far no major independent sources (BBC and such) have mentioned anything about a leaked autopsy report. Yintaɳ  10:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is actually remarkably accurate when it comes to this kind of thing (see their Diana coverage, where they knew what was happening years before anyone else did), and other non-tabloid newspapers are now citing it. I didn't add it until the broadsheets started repeating it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun remarkably accurate? That's something I wouldn't dare to claim. Yintaɳ  10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to this kind of investigation, yes. News International has deep pockets. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see. So far their report is not much more than a collection of "facts" that anybody with half a medical training could have thought up. Time will tell. Supposing the autopsy report is ever officially published. Yintaɳ  10:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite detailed. The four injections into his heart, one of them missing and hitting a rib. That's not something a person could guess. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey look it's the 'The Sun is remarkably accurate' guy!" Can't you hear it already SlimVirgin? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has been on this The Sun article can see it's phony. How they sectioned off his body and described each part. Isn't there a guideline that protests the coverage of stolen goods? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's being reported now by various television channels. If it's fraudulent in some way, someone will deny it soon enough (e.g. coroner's office, family lawyer), and we can remove or qualify it if that happens. But given it's being reported elsewhere, and given the importance of it, it would be odd for us not to include it as things stand. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess as long as we have the ..."According to the Sun" thing it'll be fine ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)replied[reply]

WE SHOULD WAIT!!! We should wait until the official toxicology reports are verified and sourced... and any further comments are made by the L.A. coroner. Before that is done, everything else is pure speculation. Whether or not the Sun is an otherwise notable source or not, doesn't really matter here. The investigation into Michael Jackson's precise nature of death is still pending.... therefore we should wait. 208.119.72.6 (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Autopsy[reply]

"The British tabloid The Sun published details on June 29 from what it says is a leaked autopsy report. According to the newspaper, the report says Jackson was emaciated and practically bald, his hair reduced to "peach fuzz." His hips, thighs, and shoulders were covered in needle marks. At 5ft 10 ins, he was found to weigh only 113 lbs (51 kilograms), and had partially dissolved pills in his stomach when he died, but no food. There was bruising on his knees and shins, and cuts on his back. The bridge to his nose was missing and the nose had partially collapsed. He had several broken ribs from attempts to resuscitate him, and four injection marks on his chest from where adrenaline was injected directly into his heart in an effort to save him. Three of the injections had penetrated the heart wall, and one had hit his ribs."[17]

--I have deleted this section, and wrote a temporary replacement paragraph... But, this section should be changed to the official L.A. Cornorer's reports when they become available. Do we really expect a tabloid to have a more accurate interpretation of Jackson's Death than the actual people performing the autopsy and toxicology? Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accordning to TMZ, the autopsy report is fake, [6]. TheLeftorium 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text attributes it to the Sun. Given TMZ wasn't accepted as a reliable source when he died, I don't understand why it would be accepted as a reliable source for anything now. That said (and to echo SV), more reliable sources may be carrying assertions along that line soon enough. Put another way, truth on this may be hard to come by for awhile, but happily, verifiability is not truth. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--The Sun is speculative ("from what it says" is hardly verifiable)... wheras Fox News reports a direct quote from a primary officiating person. I have reattached my quote without deleting the other as (temporary) compromise. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun's published report is in itself verifiable. Perhaps the article text can be tweaked further, to let readers know this is a newspaper publishing something a reporter has been told. The text seems straightforward that this is only a report gathered by the newspaper, not the autopsy. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--eh I give up. But I don't see why a direct quote from the person who actually officiated the first autopsy should be disincluded. I was going to add the direct citation to the Fox News article that reported the Coroner's quote, before you added the semi-protect. I mistakenly closed the tab on my browser, and was having to wade through the articles... But for now, I surrender to your misleading your readers to assume that the Sun tabloid is more credible than the one who actually performed the autopsy! Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been semiprotected for two days, no level of protection has been added since then. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--okay, well I apologize, I shouldn't have assumed it was you anyway... I am usually able to edit on articles that are semi-protected, as you can see I am a registered user: Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC) But forget about that, that doesn't matter... I'm not going to work on this article anymore today anyway.... But one thing does perplex me and it is in bold below...[reply]

"The text seems straightforward that this is only a report gathered by the newspaper, not the autopsy." Correct, but the section is titled "Autopsy" for goodness-skae, so why is it inappropiate to speak of an official autopsy reports in this section? That makes absolutely no sense to me... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the section title wasn't helpful, I've changed it, thanks for bringing that up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am glad I stepped aside... The lede in Investigation (or whatever it is called) is much better than anything I could have written and gets to the heart of what I was hinting at. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added the line 'The credibility of this report has yet to be verified.' to the end of this section, just to cover our bases. We haven't heard from an official source, and, at the end of the day, tabloids aren't the most respected news sources out there (deservedly so, in a lot of cases). HalfShadow 17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to tmz.com, the report is faked. --Dwi Secundus (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which is why I added the line. It's a tabloid; it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn they'd faked something to pull in readers. HalfShadow 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so much for the "remarkably accurate" Sun. Yintaɳ  20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't dismiss them quite yet. The coroner has said the report didn't come from his office, but there were two autopsies remember. The Sun really isn't in the National Enquirer league of making things up. Anyway, there is about to be a press conference, apparently. The family seems to have asked the coroner to release something. It was meant to start at 1:30 local, but has been delayed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records sold out

An editor persists in adding that MJ records sold out in the UAE as if that is something unique. It happened elsewhere around the world, as evidenced by:

WWGB (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. We can't list every country that sold out. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jackson

Is Jesse Jackson related to MJ? I presume not, but shouldn't this be stated? Also the second reference to him as just "Jackson" is confusing given the number of people called Jackson in the article. Could he be described as "Rev Jackson" on the second occurrence? Rachel Pearce (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Jackson is not biologically related to Michael Jackson. The title "Jackson" when used in this article should refer to the article's subject (i.e. Michael) all other references to this name, should have some way of addressing the possible confusion. When speaking of Reverand Jesse Jackson, we can use his full title, or the abbreviated form, Rev. Jackson. And even include, "of no relation" the first time he is mentioned. I'll make a few of these corrections, to aid from the possible confusion. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Header Template

The article is about a person who died right? Not a current event, I've changed the template ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it IS a current event. The template about the recent death should go on the Michael Jackson page. Looneyman (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture of Hollywood star

here. Someone please upload to Commons. miranda 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done miranda 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business manager

I removed the edit about Leonard Muhammad because it was very unclear. I'm going to write it up so that it reflects what the RS says. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A will, intestate, Joe Jackson, John Branca

An editor has removed mention of the competing positions of Joe Jackson's claim of intestate status for Jackson's estate, and the position that there is a will in the safe of Century City attorney, John Branca. This is substantative, as the competing positions determine the future of Jackson's estate. It is inconsistent for the present article to have mention of probate and Jackson's estate and to strip the article of mention of a possible will in an attorney's safe. Here are the references for the claim that a will exists: [14][15] Dogru144 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal advisers

I really question the appropriateness of this section. It is getting waaaay off the track of MJ's death, and delving into past business affairs. It belongs in the main MJ article, if anywhere. WWGB (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers are writing about it as though it may be relevant. People are saying he was surrounded by poor advice in the last years of his life. It's a recurring theme throughout the news coverage of his death. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-29/News and notes has graphic about traffic spike and news links which may be useful here. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Benjiboi, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.mariahdaily.com/news.shtml
  2. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/quincy-jones-michael-jackson-death/
  3. ^ http://perezhilton.com/2009-06-25-the-queen-of-pop-grieves-for-the-king-of-pop
  4. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/26/paul-mccartney-mj-was-a-talented-boy-man/
  5. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/26/diana-ross-my-heart-is-hurting/
  6. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/al-sharpton-pray-for-jacko/
  7. ^ http://www.britneyspears.com/2009/06/in-memory-of-michael-jackson.php
  8. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/justin-timberlake-we-have-lost-a-genius/
  9. ^ http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/justin-timberlake-we-have-lost-a-genius/
  10. ^ a
  11. ^ b
  12. ^ c
  13. ^ d
  14. ^ Roger Friedman, "Jackson Family: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way" Showbiz411.com June 28, 2009 http://www.showbiz411.com/jackson-family-where-theres-a-will-theres-a-way
  15. ^ NBC Nightly News, June 29, 2009
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Michael_Jackson&oldid=299428031"