Talk:Prince (musician)

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

Date of Death?

CNN reports that Prince may have been dead for hours before his body was found. While chances are he died on April 21, it isn't certain. We won't know until the autopsy results are released. So, should we change it to "April 20 or 21" until then? SlowJog (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that but, we use what the citations say which is April 21. When citations say something else we will use that. Anything else is WP:OR Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Prince is not of "mixed heritage"

His grandparents were born into slavery on both sides, he is African-American. Please stop spreading falsities to "exotify" this artist, it is ludicrous. Willnusucggd (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the link sourced does it mention he is "European and Native American" those are untrue. The huffing ton post as well as other credible sources note him as the African American that he is. Willnusucggd (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Until the DNA test comes through at best you will have to say that he is alleged to be African American. Being descended from slaves is not a guarantee that someone can exclude native Americanism or European or even Asian roots from their make-up. Sally hemming was a slave yet she was predominately European. And the Harvard African American professor is 51% although for some his "look" may be enough for some to substantiate that he is not European.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Performances at Galladet University in the 1980s

Does anyone have credible sources for his performances that he did at Gallaudet College in the 80s where interpreters throughout the audience would sign the lyrics which were probably a shock to some of these students as some of them were at the time sheltered from the average life of a college student since they were living in a deaf environment.Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Request to Remove an Unsourced Citation and Contentious, Dubious and Unverifiable Statement

Resolved

Now that things have settled down and the facts have come in, I would like to make an official request for consensus to remove an unsubstantiated statement in the article based on the grounds that the article cited presents no factual evidence for the claim, but is merely rumormongering. The erroneous statement is as follows: "but would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products." Jehovah's Witnesses reject whole-blood products, but Prince would not have rejected surgery on those grounds, and in fact no quote is ever provided of Prince or anyone representing him making such a claim in any article anywhere. The erroneous citation is as follows: "Michaels, Sean (June 11, 2009). "Prince refuses hip surgery because of his faith". The Guardian. Retrieved May 5, 2016." This claim in that article is directly counter to the facts in such professional peer-reviewed medical studies as Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Jehovah’s Witnesses (2012), Total Hip Replacement Surgery Without Blood Transfusion in Jehovah's Witnesses (1992) and Total hip replacement in Jehovah's Witnesses under spinal anesthesia without transfusion (1987) Corjay (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Corjay: Your second and third references both point to Transfusions kills patients, say doctors (1999), which isn't relevant to the question of whether Prince had the hip operation. Your first reference says "Jehovah’s Witnesses will not accept transfusions of blood or blood products", which appears to be consistent with the statement in the article that Prince "would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products". What remains to be settled is whether Prince had the operation or not. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I must have copied the wrong page link. I've corrected the links. The question isn't whether Prince had the operation or not. The question is why he didn't. There is no proof whatsoever that he didn't get it because of his beliefs, and there is ample proof that there is no reason why he couldn't regardless of his beliefs. This link does not conform to the Wikipedia citing guidelines as I understand them. All it does is pose a question without ever making a claim. One is forced to ask if this is an encyclopedia or a tabloid rumor mill? Corjay (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Corjay: Thanks for correcting the links. The article doesn't say that Prince didn't get the operation because of his beliefs, it says that he wouldn't get the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, which apparently is correct. I agree that the source cited in the article isn't very impressive: "according to reports", "allegedly", "a source told the Hollywood Report's Showbiz 411 blog". Unlike the Wikipedia article, the Guardian article does say in its headline that Prince refused hip surgery because of his beliefs, going on to say "The Purple One's Jehovah's Witness beliefs prevent him from accepting blood transfusions – making an alleged double hip replacement operation impossible". The references which you provided show that the operation can be performed without a blood transfusion. Of course it's possible that Prince wasn't aware of that, but the information provided in the Guardian article is second or third hand and does appear to reporting a rumor rather than solid fact. I agree that the sentence and citation in the Wikipedia article should be removed unless a better source can be found. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Strawberry4Ever:"Apparently is correct?" I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is not correct. He needed that surgery long before he became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. So what was the reason then? Likely it is because if he got the surgery, he would end up having to move like an old man which would ruin his stage presence. "A source" could mean a person off the street or one of our apostates. Look at all the articles claiming "sources" that said he had HIV. Anyone could claim a "source" and lie. The source is not named, thus there is no proof the claim is true. This is from the horse's mouth: Jehovah's Witnesses do not refuse hip surgery because we refuse blood transfusions. I gave you the links to prove it. What does this reporter for the Guardian have? Anonymous, unverified "sources". The article infers a conclusion from too little facts. One of the facts it is missing is that hip surgery does not require blood transfusions as I proved with professional medical articles going back to 1987. My question to you is: Why is it so important to you for this false implication to be propagated on Wikipedia? And what facts do you have to verify the claim besides an unsubstantiated rumor? By your own words the article "isn't very impressive", which is an understatement. By insisting on its inclusion, what you're saying is that Wikipedia should treat everything written by a tabloid as fact just because it is printed, though not citing its sources. Why even bother citing articles as proof if the article itself has no proof? Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions, so yes Jehovah's Witnesses will not have surgery unless it is bloodless. Hip surgery does not require blood transfusions. Therefore, Prince did not reject hip surgery on the claim that it would require a blood transfusion.Corjay (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Corjay: Please re-read my last reply to you. I'm not insisting on the sentence's inclusion. As I said, I agree that the sentence and citation in the Wikipedia article should be removed unless a better source can be found. As for your statement that "I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is not correct", I don't see a difference between [Prince] would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products as stated in the article (before your edits, which I haven't read yet) and your statement that yes Jehovah's Witnesses will not have surgery unless it is bloodless. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Strawberry4Ever: My apologies. I missed the part where you said you agreed. It looked otherwise. Also, I wasn't suggesting to include a quote from me. Corjay (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear to those interested in this discussion: This is not disputing whether Prince had hip problems. This is not disputing whether Prince needed hip surgery. This is not disputing whether Prince would not have surgery that wasn't bloodless. This is disputing the implication that Prince did not have hip surgery because he refused blood transfusions.Corjay (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

According to this story Prince had hip replacement surgery in 2010. The source may not be reliable enough for a citation since it's quoting an anonymous source "very close to the situation", but the same could be said of the Guardian source currently being cited. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Strawberry4Ever: On the contrary, an ET report should shoot any Guardian report out of the water. ET is 99.9% reliable. They are an entertainment news agency that every entertainer in the world trusts more than anyone. When an entertainer wants to be fairly reported on, ET is the first call they make. The Guardian is a gossip rag that you couldn't trust to report on Prince's shoe size. Corjay (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article with direct quotes from Prince's Bible teacher, Larry Graham: 'We lost a spiritual brother' in Prince Note this statement: "Graham also denied claims that Prince couldn’t have hip surgery because his faith prohibited blood transfusions." You can't get a better source than that. Larry Graham is an elder and has been a member of the organization since the 70's, and having been his Bible teacher and appeared in nearly every interview with Prince about his beliefs, no one is more qualified to state what Prince's opinions on the subject were. I think we can consider this matter settled. Corjay (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC) I agree that this "Request to Remove an Unsourced Citation and Contentious, Dubious and Unverifiable Statement be removed. The erroneous statement is as follows: "but would not undergo the operation unless it was a bloodless surgery, because Jehovah's Witnesses typically do not accept blood products." be removed. Abergoust (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

AIDS

Did he have AIDS at the time of his death? (109.158.178.173 (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC))

No. The coroner's final report made no mention of AIDS. It was an unsubstantiated rumor spread by vicious gossip rags looking to make a profit from his tragic death while the coroner delayed. He died of a Fentanyl overdose, which has nothing whatsoever to do with AIDS. He had the flu, untreated it turned into walking pneumonia, and in this weakened state he was unable to endure the drug dosage and his heart gave out. The reality is that he just didn't stop moving in spite of the doctor's explicit direction to stay in bed. Corjay (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because the report didn't mention it doesn't prove he didn't have it. (109.158.178.173 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC))

There is no evidence he had HIV or AIDS. Only tabloids speculated on it, likely due to his gender expression. But you have your answer. This is not a forum for speculating on his medical history. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Besides that, the claim was that he acquired HIV in 1984 and that he never got it treated. If that were so, that would make him the longest living untreated AIDS victim in history, as he would have lived almost 3 times over the average life expectancy of those who acquire HIV/AIDS. Corjay (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Would Death of Prince merit its own article now?

I'm opening this discussion on behalf of Whiskeymouth, who has petitioned for the article's recreation at DRV. This article has already gone through DRV once and the consensus was that the AfD close was valid at the time of deletion and that any discussion about recreation needs to happen here, as any argument for inclusion would now center around sources that were not existent at the time of the AfD. (Meaning that this is not a case for DRV, but a discussion that needs to occur here.)

I have no true opinion on this at this point in time and I'm opening this now because it seems like this is a good time to hold such a discussion. From what I can see, there hasn't been a discussion that included the news coverage on the cause of death and the various people who have come out of the woodwork to claim a chunk of his estate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• My personal opinion would be, no. I think the article would end up a tribute, fancruft, and be overly bloated and with insufficient eyes on it to keep it accurate, concise, and encyclopedic. I think it would be subject to someone nominating it again for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

improper closure by non administrator

I have no opinion about Prince but I wrote on the DRV that the non-administrator violated the rules that limit Non-administrators to close AFD only for non disputed. There was no opposition to my statement, therefore the DRV closes with this declaration.

The Death of Prince article stands unless users here can show that such article causes harm to the public. Tim Bosnia (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

IT IS SO ORDERED. Tim Bosnia (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)