Talk:Death of Michael Jackson

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A lot of the information under "Record Sales" is already outdated.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.

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.

Jackson finally laid to rest

It was a private ceremony held last night too. Story --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Public access to the Great Mausoleum

Jackson was buried at the Great Mausoluem at Forest Lawn in Glendale, CA. The source which was relied on the most (as of September 6, 2009) for information about the burial was a Time Magazine story which implied that the mausoleum was accessible only to family members and plot owners and which told an anecdote or two about the tight security. Other stories mentioned that the facility was closed to tourists during Jackson's funeral, implying that it is usually open. There evidently are guided tours of the mausoleum, but no one is allowed to just wander around at random, and many graves are off-limits to the public. There is somewhat less restricted public access to the rest of the memorial park. I am not sure how to phrase this without getting into a convoluted and/or inaccurate and/or unencyclopedic explanation, so I just said the mausoleum is "not freely accessible." We may need more of an explanation than that. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we say it was really 1 billion people worldwide watching?

According to the "main" Michael Jackson page, the worldwide audience of 1 billion people didn't seem to be represented as a very accurate/reliable estimation.

What I mean is that the main page says that the audience may have been 1 billion, maybe not.

Can we sort of elaborate on this to be sure of it?

Thanks.

'cardiac arrest', says nothing, most/all dead people don't have beating hearts

I wanted to get rid of the term, 'cardiac arrest'. MJ did not die from heart problems,he died from drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorvetteZ51 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The cardiac arrest phrase comes from the original media reports of Jackson's death in June. At the time, the prescription drugs angle had not emerged. The LA coroner subsequently ruled that the cause of death was acute propofol intoxication.[1] However, since this is a medical report rather than a court ruling, the current wording in the article is broadly correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

the latest medical report, from the coroner,says cause of death is homicide.CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an opinion, and a medical rather than a legal opinion. I wouldn't want a smart lawyer to argue that any future trial had been prejudiced by improper advance publicity, and I speak as a smart lawyer. Rodhullandemu 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, homicide is a type of death, not a cause of death. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

conrad murray

why does conrad murray redirect here? he is the man responsible for killing what was possibly the biggest celebrity of all time. that makes him notable enough for his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.131.125 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "allegedly responsible". However, until the legal process is complete, he is arguably not that notable. When he is, he will probably get his own article. Rodhullandemu 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he murdered MJ, I'm saying he is responsible. They've already established that Propofol was the cause, and Murray was the one giving it to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.221.54 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERPETRATOR becomes involved here. Wikipedia should follow standard practice and not say anything that could prejudice a future trial, as has been pointed out before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And nothing has changed since this discussion. Consensus seems clear that we should wait until after any trial. Rodhullandemu 19:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is also consensus that the doctor killed him. --213.130.255.33 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Other concerns/conspiracies

IMHO, the subsection, Death of Michael Jackson#Other concerns (which might as well be called Death of Michael Jackson#Conspiracy theories) does not serve much of a purpose in this article anymore. Yes, these "other concerns" were raised by the Jackson family. But, as the focus of the investigation has long been on only one man--even more so now--these concerns appear to say more about the Jackson family than about the death of Michael Jackson. For a long time now, it has been quite clear in most people's minds that Jackson's death was caused by a single individual: He was not killed by La Toya's theorized "shadowy entourage" or by any other clandestine group of evil-doers. At this point, the subsection might as well allege that Jackson was kidnapped by the ghost of Elvis Presley. In other words, the section looks silly now, and sheds far less light on the meaning or circumstances of Jackson's death than it does on how Jackson's family (understandably, but idiosyncratically) reacted to his death with shock and suspicion. In a nutshell, the section strikes me as WP:UNDUE, even though the ideas therein originate with Jackson's family. This article is not about Jackson's family any more than it is about the bazillion people who crashed Google following the death. The article rightfully notes some significant things that the family did. But widely discredited conspiracy theories, even coming from them, do not seem all that significant anymore. So, anyone agree that the section ought to be removed? Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I think this is important here, as it is in a separate article about Jackson's death (rather than Jackson himself), particularly where some discussion of the "those around him" (including individual members of his family who were close, or not) is relevant to the circumstances of his death and the apparent seclusion or isolation (including from some family members) in which he lived just prior. The fact that some very close relatives expressed such ideas afterward (well-founded or not), is relevant to Jackson's personal and emotional state prior to his death, and informative as to the personal context of that event. Steveozone (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the proposition that "Jackson's death was caused by a single individual" unless you are referring to his own compulsions or addictions (even then I'd cut him a break and note that others around him didn't help much). Steveozone (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also disagree that it's clear that "Jackson's death was caused by a single individual". I read an article by a major news source that an anonymous law enforcement source said they are investigating other doctors amd that charges are likely for at least one more doctor. It's not just about who gave the injections but who wrote the prescriptions. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the "Other concerns" sections should stay. The victim's family's opinion of an investigation is often considered newsworthy by reliable sources, and I think this makes it significant enough to be included in the article. This particular family also has the money to carry out their own investigation. Last year, they paid for a separate autopsy and hired a private investigator. While the family can't file criminal charges, they can file lawsuits, so their opinions could continue to create newsworthy events for months or years, regardless of whether those opinions look silly. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Conrad murray needs own article

I find it disturbing that he does not have his own article now, the man was recentlly charged with Michael's death. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP1E and (if convicted, WP:PERP). He's probably not notable enough just yet; if he wasn't notable before Jackson's death, this charge will not necessarily make him notable. Rodhullandemu 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur. A charge does not reliably establish the facts alleged, and he is already referenced in this article, with a convenient redirect for those who are curious. As for notability, anything that should be said about Murray can easily fit in this article, rather than another article which would almost certainly be entirely sourced from news stories about Jackson's death, containing material about Murray that never would have been published but for Jackson's death--all of which, of course, is the direct subject of this article, distinct from all others. Steveozone (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is getting quite large.. how long will you guys keep stuffing this into the section instead of making a separate page, what will happen anyways in the future.. he's notable enough for being at MJ's death and being charged. Don't be silly and stating the rulez all the time.. good luck with the article. Marminnetje (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)