Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Recommending upgrade to "C" class

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

-

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

- -

Doctor left?

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

- -

Flashmob

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

-

Effect on the internet

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

- -

Let's wait for a month before writing about this. I think the alleged impact upon the Internet was approximately 100% hype. The Google News outage was reported today to have been because the Google machines interpreted the heavy traffic as a DDOS attack. If you'll remember, the news websites of the world were not nearly as impacted by Michael Jackson as they were on 9/11/01. Tempshill (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Agreed. In fact, I kind of take issue with the line in the article that reads: "Although individual websites and servers were affected, the Internet as a whole remained largely unaffected." No s**t Sherlock. The Internet does not exist "as a whole". And as we've seen in this case and in many before it, the endpoints overload well before the infrastructure does. Mbarbier (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Duration of drive to UCLA Medical

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

- -

Ever been to LA? Ever had to come up with a quick excuse why you were late? There's a reason why Google Maps is not a reliable source (let alone the first day's dispatches from any reporter, any newspaper, anywhere). Steveozone (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

The first user above has a point. This is an ambulance with lights going. Cars should pull over. The route suggests Hilgard, going along east side of the campus, but that's a little narrow. If he takes Sunset, S Beverly Glen, Wilshire, then north on Westwood Bvld into the medical center, the streets are plenty wide. At 1 pm, not rush hour, it shouldn't be so congested at even an ambulance can't get through. 15 minutes, tops. SBHarris 02:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Excellent research. I would agree with that assessment, but of course, it's original research. Additionally, there is more to the question posed than how much time the trip would take. There is also the question of the reliability of the time of departure and arrival reported by Bild, which is looking fairly unreliable. Steveozone (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Is this article necesary?

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

-

According to the wisdom of the masses, apparently yes. 84.44.140.9 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

No, everything that is of actual substance (probably a paragraph's worth) could be summed up in the main article.--Susan118 ^talk 19:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

Please present a draft of that proposed paragraph below, I'd be interested to see what you think that would look like. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

-

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

- -

Picture

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

-

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

- -

Cash issue

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

- -

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

- - SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

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

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

- -

Thanks. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

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

- -

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

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

- -

This was originally in the U.S. newspapers, and in multiple sources, though none of them explained (that I saw) quite what was meant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

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

- -

A couple articles from the satiral publication The Onion

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

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

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

- - Grundle2600 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Not really appropriate, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Seriously, WP has no "funny section" for such and no matter what your (or anybody's) opinion (including mine) on him is, it might be appropriate to at least wait till he is buried and put to rest before suggesting humoresque additions.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Thanks for your responses. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- - --Even after his burial, these would be highly questionable content for this article. Although, they could be added to The Onion article itself, since that is their source, as a sampling of their quotations. This is an article about the actual Death of Michael Jackson; not an article on humor. Since the onion is a satirical medium, it really has no place here, in my opinion. I am in agreement with SlimVirgin 208.119.72.6 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Dogru144 (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Image

File:Jacko's death dominating the front pages!.jpg

I suggest sending this to the WP:Graphic Lab and eliminating the top row and the left-side column. -- Banjeboi 10:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I did it for you here. Don't know where or how to upload it, though. TheLeftorium 10:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Go here[1] and upload the image; where it says file changes indicate "cropped image to remove content irrelevant to subject as well as duplicate covers" - or similar. -- Banjeboi 14:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! TheLeftorium 14:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much! -- Banjeboi 15:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Al Sharpton quote in Media coverage

Slim, you removed the Al Sharpton quote here with the comment "thats not media coverage". How is a press conference not media coverage? It was the first time a friend or family member of Jackson talked to the press.

I'm pasting the deletion here, so I can add it back in if you agree.

On June 25th, The Reverend Al Sharpton gave a press conference in Harlem: "I have known Michael since we were both teens, worked with him, marched for him, hosted him at our House of Justice headquarters in New York, and we joined together to eulogize our mutual idol, James Brown... Michael Jackson made culture accept a person of color way before Tiger Woods, way before Oprah Winfrey, and way before Barack Obama ... no controversy will erase the historic impact."

  Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a guess here but - it's not about media coverage of Jackson's death. It's about biographical info of things Sharpton and Jackson did; and how Jackson impacted racial issues. There's nothing there about the death. -- Banjeboi 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Future album(s), DVD and live concert in September show

Here's a nugget. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation or further analysis of 30 minute delay before calling

I know, I know, we're not supposed to do original research not comment; however, a good encyclopedia also does not leave in "man, that really makes you scratch your head, doesn't it?" portions either. We currently state without any further explanation that all that

Chernoff [lawyer representing MJ's phsycian] told CNN's Anderson Cooper that there was no landline in the bedroom, and although Murray had a cell phone, he did not know the address of the property.

Is a string of head-scratchers. 1. MJ's personal physician doesn't know his address? Strange. 2. It took the physician 30 minutes to realize he had the option of "finally [running] downstairs to get a chef to summon help for the dying [Michael Jackson]"? Yes it was a stressful time, but a half hour to realize that's an option? From a smart physician? 3. Didn't occur to him to use his cellphone to call a friend to find out MJ's address? 4. Didn't occur to him to use his cellphone to call 911 and ask them to find out MJ's address? 5. Didn't occur to him to call the hospital emergency room and have them look up MJ's address? Beyond strains-credulity. Without doing original research, we can, and should, and I urge others, to seek out reports the article could cite to at least begin to answer these questions and perhaps find articles also commenting on how plausible it is that all five of these questions (and others that could be added) have a reasonable answer. I'm not a MJ fan, but this is glaring, folks..Thanks in advance for any additions to the wiki entry to shed light on these important questions. --Harel (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit proposal

{{editsemiprotected}}

Request

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

I added and wikilinked California. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete request*

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

"Breaking news

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

• Delete request*

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

• Addition Request*

The website STFLChan was the second website to break news of his death, this can be confirmed by checking the times posted on their site http://www.stflchan.org/blog/ They were also the FIRST to bring up the fact that it is most likely a drug overdose. Where would this go in this article? This article is a mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfreeman (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is not a mess, and it's irrelevant that the website was the first to state Michael Jackson's death was "most likely a drug overdose," because according to Conrad Murray no drug was administered to Jackson that morning. It's notable that there was a flurry of early reports that it was the Demerol, but beyond that it isn't newsworthy seeing as it is rumor at best. Digitelle (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Commentary/grief section

Can we please stick either to people who knew Jackson well, or particularly notable people e.g. Obama? Adding every celebrity who said something is obviously not sustainable. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Effect on Internet

Why is the graph placed on the left in this section? It throws the section out of alignment with the rest of the article, impacting on ease of readability. WWGB (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the left because all the images were on the right. What kind of problem is it causing? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When reading a passage of text
the eyes naturally revert to the
same position for each new line

When a passage is indented however,

the eyes have to adjust to a new

position on the page.

This makes it more difficult to
read and understand the text

compared to a passage

with a common left alignment

WWGB (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought you meant it was causing a formatting problem. We do place images on the right and the left, because articles can look a little odd with images placed only on one side, just as with any newspaper or magazine. Having them on different sides breaks up the text for the reader. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

I'm thinking of creating a stub in preparation at Funeral of Michael Jackson, so that we can direct traffic there once it happens. After a few weeks, depending on the size and quality of that article, we can either leave it as a stand-alone and have a section on it here summary-style, or else merge it back into this text. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sure it will be fought against to the death, just like this one was. Portillo (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit to being very puzzled about that. Do we want articles that are several hundred kbs long, impossible to load, impossible to keep tidy? Surely not. Hence Wikipedia:Summary style. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope i didnt sound like i was against it. For me, the more MJ articles the better! But i remember alot of ppl being against the Death of MJ article. Portillo (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay, I didn't think you were against it. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Death at the scene

"Paramedics are reported to have wanted to pronounce him dead at the scene, but Murray insisted he be taken to a hospital" -- I have removed this statement. It come from TMZ's anonymous source, obviously this is not enough to include this statement in encyclopedia. Trycatch (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in several sources, including the one after the sentence, which I think was the Telegraph or similar. We don't actually know where they got it. We just repeat what the sources publish. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Telegraph? I've found only Mirror article (which uses unnamed anonymous source, but possibly independent from TMZ), all other articles (for example, news.scotsman.com, News.com.au, etc) clearly used TMZ. Few unknown anonymous sources -- do you think this is really enough? Trycatch (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson record stats according to billboard for the weekend

As predicted, Michael Jackson is once again the King of the Pop charts.

Based on preliminary sales numbers from Nielsen SoundScan, the entire top nine positions on Billboard's Top Pop Catalog Albums chart will house Jackson-related titles when the tally is released in the early morning on Wednesday (July 1). Nielsen SoundScan's sales tracking week ended at the close of business on Sunday (June 28) night. The King of Pop's "Number Ones" will fittingly lead the pack at No. 1 with 108,000 (an increase of 2,340%) while "The Essential Michael Jackson" and "Thriller" are in the Nos. 2 and 3 slots with 102,000 and 101,000, respectively. Last week "Number Ones" was the only Jackson title on the chart, at No. 20 with 4,000 copies; both "Essential" and "Thriller" re-enter the tally this week. Additionally, his classic 1979 studio set "Off the Wall" re-enters at No. 4 with 33,000 while his 1987 album "Bad" returns at No. 6 with 17,000. At No. 5, the Jackson 5's "The Ultimate Collection" debuts with 18,000. Jackson's fourth studio album for Epic Records, 1991's "Dangerous," re-enters at No. 7 with 14,000 while his 2001 compilation "Greatest Hits: HIStory -- Volume 1" also comes back to the list at No. 8 with 12,000. Finally, Jackson's 2004 box set "The Ultimate Collection" charts its first week on the Pop Catalog chart, arriving at No. 9 with 11,000......... With the Black Eyed Peas' "The E.N.D." moving back to the No. 1 slot on the Billboard 200 chart with 88,000, this week marks the first time that a catalog album has sold more than the No. 1 current set on the Billboard 200 albums chart. (All three of Jackson's top sellers on the Pop Catalog chart outsell "The E.N.D.").........the Jackson 5 and the Jacksons -- account for 2.6 million downloads, a remarkable number considering last week's cumulative sum was 48,000. Moreover, Jackson becomes the first act to sell more than 1 million song downloads in a week.

http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/michael-jackson-breaks-billboard-charts-1003989310.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.32.249 (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

For X7000

You'll need a proper source for your edits, not a blog, as we have no way of knowing if it's genuine. Also, your edits about Halperin are BLP violations (and potentially libelous) without a good source, so I won't reproduce them here, but here is your nanny edit:

"Later Grace Rwaramba denied these claims saying "I don’t even know how to pump a stomach" and she has never spoken to the Times Online, the original source of the story that has now been picked up worldwide." ([2], June 30, 2009.)

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the nanny denial with a proper source. Please don't use a blog when you can use ABC News! The Halperin claim will also need a good one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

National Enquirer predicted M.J.'s death

On January 12, 2009; the National Enquirer ran a cover story that predicted Michael Jackson had 6 months to live, due to illness, as well as drug and alchol abuse. I think that fact should be added to the article by someone who can do so. To find numerous references; go to Goggle.com and put in the search block: National Enquirer Michael Jackson months to live. You will get more that enough references to prove they predicted the time of his death almost to the day.204.80.61.110 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

They have also 'predicted' many things that have not happened. When many predictions are made, it is not surprising that at least one of them actually happens. Information yes (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Autopsy

I'm not sure what to do about the autopsy report published by a British tabloid, The Sun. [3] It's being published elsewhere, but so far it's always The Sun being cited. Should we use it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

More mainstream newspapers are picking it up, so I've added a section. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, let's delete this section, come on, you don't actually believe some of the Sun's stories do you? It's a joke! Stuff about Bigfoot backing Hillary Clinton in the elections, Hitler and Stalin are alive and are lovers, alien cats, Elvis sightings, didn't they have BatBoy? This stuff is insane! I think it's a definite delete. ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 09:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're getting mixed up with some other tabloid. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think he is. That's more the Sunday Sport's area. Yintaɳ  10:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it only we'll remove exact details, so it'll be "..The sun broke news of a supposed autopsy report leak, later proven wrong of correct...." Good? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should go until a second source, that is not just quoting The Sun, can be found. So far no major independent sources (BBC and such) have mentioned anything about a leaked autopsy report. Yintaɳ  10:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is actually remarkably accurate when it comes to this kind of thing (see their Diana coverage, where they knew what was happening years before anyone else did), and other non-tabloid newspapers are now citing it. I didn't add it until the broadsheets started repeating it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sun remarkably accurate? That's something I wouldn't dare to claim. Yintaɳ  10:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to this kind of investigation, yes. News International has deep pockets. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. So far their report is not much more than a collection of "facts" that anybody with half a medical training could have thought up. Time will tell. Supposing the autopsy report is ever officially published. Yintaɳ  10:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite detailed. The four injections into his heart, one of them missing and hitting a rib. That's not something a person could guess. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hey look it's the 'The Sun is remarkably accurate' guy!" Can't you hear it already SlimVirgin? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has been on this The Sun article can see it's phony. How they sectioned off his body and described each part. Isn't there a guideline that protests the coverage of stolen goods? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's being reported now by various television channels. If it's fraudulent in some way, someone will deny it soon enough (e.g. coroner's office, family lawyer), and we can remove or qualify it if that happens. But given it's being reported elsewhere, and given the importance of it, it would be odd for us not to include it as things stand. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess as long as we have the ..."According to the Sun" thing it'll be fine ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 11:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)replied

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

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

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

Accordning to TMZ, the autopsy report is fake, [4]. TheLeftorium 15:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have added the line 'The credibility of this report has yet to be verified.' to the end of this section, just to cover our bases. We haven't heard from an official source, and, at the end of the day, tabloids aren't the most respected news sources out there (deservedly so, in a lot of cases). HalfShadow 17:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

According to tmz.com, the report is faked. --Dwi Secundus (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...which is why I added the line. It's a tabloid; it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn they'd faked something to pull in readers. HalfShadow 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, so much for the "remarkably accurate" Sun. Yintaɳ  20:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't dismiss them quite yet. The coroner has said the report didn't come from his office, but there were two autopsies remember. The Sun really isn't in the National Enquirer league of making things up. Anyway, there is about to be a press conference, apparently. The family seems to have asked the coroner to release something. It was meant to start at 1:30 local, but has been delayed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Two autopsies on the same body. The results should be similar. If not identical. The LA coroner stated about the Sun autopsy: "I don't know where the information came from, or who that information came from. It is not accurate. Some of it is totally false." A second autopsy with totally false results compared to the first? Highly unlikely. Also, some of the "facts" in their report are so common they're (almost) bound to be correct. Cardiac arrest? Adrenaline injections. Hours of CPR? Broken rib or two. Like I said, anybody with half a medical training could have thought that up. The changes of it being right are quite high. If you want to put your faith in The Sun, go ahead, but I dismissed them as a reliable newspaper years ago. Yintaɳ  22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)