![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
- - This article now appears to be "C" class rather than "Start". What do others think? Majoreditor (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- -
- - 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)
- -
- - 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)
-
- - 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)
- -
- -
- -
- - 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)
- -
- -
- -
- -
- - Is it?--77.46.174.197 (talk) 18:57, 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)
-
- -
- - 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)
-
- -
- - 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.
- -
- - SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- -
- - I added that, but i dont mind if its removed. Portillo (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- -
- -
- -
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)
- -
- -
- -
- - 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)
- -
- -
- -
- - --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)
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)
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.
Jonverve Talk Contrib 14:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a nugget. -- Banjeboi 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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][2]"? 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)
((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.
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]"
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)
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)
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)
When reading a passage of text
the eyes naturally revert to the
same position for each new line
This makes it more difficult to
read and understand the text
WWGB (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
"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)
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)
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:
SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
--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)
--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)
--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)
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)