Talk:Michael Jackson

Edit/Revert this page

Should we have that line at the top of this page? Michael Jackson died age 50 (deceased) NiteHacker (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now another bad edit added! NiteHacker (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.

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. 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', '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"

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)

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!

---

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)]]

Discussion for death

Discussion about the recentism of Jackson's death can be found here. Please remain civil and do not complicate things. ZooFari 01:44, 26 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)

Incorrect Statement

"On June 25, 2009, he collapsed at his home in Los Angeles. After being taken to the hospital in a coma, Jackson was pronounced dead."

I was going to say something about it... it was posted for quite awhile but is NOT accurate! THANK YOU, to whomever, that removed that statement! It was NOT clear and still is unclear as to how he was found and whether they really revived him or not and so whether he was in a coma or not is really NOT known at this point. Several sources say he was found not breathing at his home or when help arrived... this part is not clear... and so the above statement may NOT be correct... especially the 'in a coma' and 'he collapsed'. As far as I know, there's NO definite statement from the father (or family) as to what happened or what state he was in or when he was actually dead... although, it's really not official until you are checked by a professional or taken to the hospital.

A Death section should be added, but it's TOO early to add, and facts stated there (with reliable sources)... but only after the traffic dies down and the facts become known and verified. IE Ed McMahon is a good example and it seems to be correct to me! If people want the facts (if reliable?) can 'google' them and find it! Just letting people post information indiscriminately is leading to false information being posted over and over and needlessly! NiteHacker (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to include the word "reportedly"; the source reported that's what happened. Hence "reportedly. wadester16 01:56, 26 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)

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)

"Cited as one of the world's most famous men,"

I think that this sentence, in the lead, is important enough to require an inline cite. Before I tag it, may I have comments, please? TerriersFan (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh/ don't tag this while the article is fully protected please. Cenarium (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time to remove the full protection then.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove it per WP:POV. Opinions like these should be referenced accordingly to the one citing him. ZooFari 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the WP:LEAD, citations are, barring exceptional cases, not required if they are given in the rest of the article; and there are in Michael_Jackson#Legacy_and_influence. Cites in the lead are exceptional and should be strongly justified if added. For now, I don't see such discussion and editorial consensus, so keep as is. Cenarium (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced in the article body, read WP:LEAD. — Please comment R² 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE says nothing about cites in the lede being "exceptional"... i pulled 4 featured articles from the music section, Celine Dion, [Ellis Paul]], The Supremes and Gwen Stefani... they all have citations in the lead.

"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)

Plastic Surgery?!

How about a section on the plastic surgery he underwent. Very significant yet it appears that the author of this article has left it out. Bias?

Read the article; information about his plastic surgeries is there right under the 1986–1990: Tabloids, appearance, Bad, autobiography and films section. At the top of that section, it even links to the article Michael Jackson's health and appearance. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I say its not verifiable enough; while much of it is readily observable, the true nature of the surgeries Mr. Jackson underwent would be privileged information, making a section of sorts too speculative to be complete. Hrhadam (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Hrhadam. But as I pointed out, we also have the article titled Michael Jackson's health and appearance. That article pretty much states it as fact that he has had plastic surgeries. And due to already having an article about his plastic surgeries, I am not seeing why we need to separate the information in this article about his plastic surgeries into its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 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)

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 "

Jehovah's Witness?

Shouldn't MJ be named in a Jehovah's Witness category? Consider, e.g., either Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses or Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses. Rammer (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes he should be in one of those, but there is still debate as to which.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

Pls add to Death section:

1. After he collapsed, Jackson's personal physician, who was with him at the time, attempted to resuscitate him. - Jermaine Jackson
2. Resuscitation efforts continued both en route to the UCLA medical centre, and after arrival at approximately 1:14 p.m, for a further hour. - Jermaine Jackson
3. The case was transferred to the Los Angeles coroner for investigation as there was no doctor in attendance to sign the death certificate - Lt Fred Corrall, coroner's investigations unit

• Source (page 1 for edits 1 and 2, page 2 for edit 3)

MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(1967-2009)

Admins: In the Infobox, there should not be brackets around these years — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Impact of Jackson's death

There needs to be mentioned in the death section of this article the impact of his passing among fans as the outpouring of grief is rivaled only by the deaths of Elvis Presley and John Lennon as shown by news stories such as at [5]. In Detroit, fans gathered at the old Motown HQ Hitsville U.S.A. (now the Motown Museum) to hold vigil as it was there that Jackson began his career as found at [6]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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 [7] 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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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."

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 clearly 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,

"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. [8] [9][10][11] 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)

"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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Something I'll be investigating...

Many people, including myself, think that Michael Jackson may have faked his death. I know, it sounds crazy, and sad. Yet I beleive this to be a possibility, and will be looking into it. If I find any proof or useful information on the idea, I'll let you know. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Make sure your sources are more reliable than the Los Angeles County Coroner. Otherwise, it will be a record fast trip to WP:FRINGE. --Moni3 (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific cause of death has yet to be determined

shouldn't this be 'The specific cause of death is yet to be determined'

It's already in the article...

"...the specific cause of death has yet to be determined." NiteHacker (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the specific cause of death has yet to be determined. 86.151.236.114 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it... it already says that in the article? NiteHacker (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nitehacker, you're right - a simple grammar correction. I corrected it. -Sme3 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs personal section

This is a FA but no personal section. Very hard to find info on wife and kids. User F203 (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic has already been covered, look above... 'Personal life section missing' NiteHacker (talk) 15:35, 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)

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)

Other tributes?

MTV has aired nothing but Michael Jackson videos since his death. That can be seen now. I know many radio stations aired his song yesterday afternoon as well.