Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Death of Michael Jackson. 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 3

Recentism

This article reeks of recentism. This isn't worthy of its own article. I know people are excited, but this isn't reasonable and contains tons of garbage. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, since the death of Michael Jackson is one of the major news stories of 2009, and has received more coverage than any since the death of Princess Diana. The main Michael Jackson article is long enough already, and this article can look at the issues in more depth. Agree that there are some WP:RECENTISM issues at the moment, but these can be pruned as required.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition regarding Birmngham, England / Death of Jackson

Temporarily holding information that may be deleted from Wikinews due to NPOV regarding Birmngham, England / Death of Jackson. Has this info been included in encyclopaedic format already at WP? Is a section / sub section desired on WP? Some (Not verified) sources have been cited by the original contributors and photos provided at the Temporary sandbox page. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be appropriate here, SriMesh. By the way, I see you've put the temp article in mainspace. It should probably be moved into your userspace. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I added the query here, I am not sure of all the events rotating around Jackson, which are notable but there were images, and two write ups with sources, and I thought I would let folks here decide, but it is deleted now at the WP sandbox, and will soon be deleted here... Authorities destroy Michael Jackson tribute in Trafalgar Square - British church destroys Michael Jackson tribute. I would forget about it at my WP sandbox, as it is not my usual field to write about, just noticed that pictures etc were leaving. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Perez Hilton that he deserves a mention here?

seriously guys, wikipedia is turning into trash...tens of thousands of esteemed journalists wrote about MJ and wikipedia has to report what not one, but two fuckwits said, limbough, too, two attention grabing whores and some of the least well know or estabished journalists? Where are the times, the independent, heck even the mail. Please dont turn wikipedia into a trashcan...02:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was frank. — Please comment R ² 03:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton is also not notable, nor is that his real name. He is a blogger that had his name changed to resemble Paris Hilton's.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What he calls himself has nothing to do with his credibility; it's called a pseudonym. That said I don't know if his words the other day are notable, but they certainly lend to one of the controversies surrounding Jackson's death. Digitelle (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove it then. Portillo (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton and Matt Drudge are both well known bloggers. Hilton's posting about Jackson's cardiac arrest being a fake led to criticism in the mainstream media, which is why it was added. If other users think that it is not notable enough, it does not have to be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that bloggers like Mario Lavandeira are normally not allowed on Wikipedia because they're never a primary source and always fail WP:NPOV.--MahaPanta (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that even mentioning Perez Hilton makes it look like Wikipedia is "dumbing down", but there ain't much we can do about it. Like it or not, he is a notable individual who has gained mainstream coverage for his disrespectful remarks. — Please comment R ² 14:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why Perez Hilton is mentioned either. I'd be fine with it being removed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Perez Hilton controversy is not in the article at the moment. There is an Internet culture issue here, because Hilton is a well known name/hate figure on the net, but is not well known to the general public. He has received criticism for his "Heart attack or cold feet?" post, which was subsequently removed. See also [1], [2].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Mario Lavandeira, which I had only heard about on TMZ before now, is only notiable for his opinions. Since Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, is anything this blogger writes notable enough for inclusion? To this point, I am even considering nominating his "Perez Hilton" article for deletion. I'm willing to help make it policy that someone has to be notible for more than not having a neutral point of view. If we don't do this, I could take the pseudonym Semyn Pegg, use it to make a blog saying that I have proof that Vince Offer is gay, then cite "exclusive sources" that Barack Obama has died making me the first media outlet in the world to break the news, and then get my own wikipedia article.--MahaPanta (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton is not a serious journalist, most people agree about that. He is more like an online shock jock who relishes any form of controversy. Nevertheless, he has picked up some coverage that is notable per WP:N, and any attack on him feeds his publicity machine. Like it or not, he is probably enjoyng every minute of the controversy that his comments about Jackson's death caused. Historians will look back on the Internet coverage of Jackson's death as important, and the Hilton posts will be looked at, no matter how crude/unreliable they are.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But all he posts are rumors. Since when did Wikipedia become a rumor rag?--MahaPanta (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perez Hilton is notable; his posts to his blog during the whole "is he or isn't he" portion of Michael Jackson's death aren't. But at his article there's an entire section on those posts, and good luck getting rid of that. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of what Perez Hilton writes would not last very long on Wikipedia due to huge WP:BLP issues, but this misses the point. Hilton's guiding principle is that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Agreed that his Jackson posts are not notable enough for this article, but they are worth a paragraph in his wiki biography since sources can be provided.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Deepak Chopra

Not sure why the image was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. I've restored it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a WP:UNDUE issue here. Chopra's claim has not received much coverage, and a photo showing what he looks like does not add to what the text says. Better to drop it, as the article is becoming somewhat overfilled with images.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Chopra's views have received a lot of coverage, including at least one lengthy interview with Anderson Cooper. Images don't really follow UNDUE anyway, which is an NPOV issue. And I disagree about the number of images. We don't have enough, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rented home

It was a rented home not his home. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

People don't have to own houses to call them home. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The house was a temporary house for a short time to prepare for the tour. It was not his residency. The way it is written it looks like it was his place when it was only rented for a short time. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was where he was living, so that made it his home. It's not as though there was another place that was home, and he was just staying there briefly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapse

Why use "collapse" since he didn't actually collapse - he simply never woke up. At least based on everything we know, regardless of why he didn't wake up. Dwkmi (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronologically, he collapsed, then doctors figured he wouldn't wake up. ThaMoonwalker (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

According to who he collapsed. He may of been resting in bed or even sleeping. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge it's not clear exactly how things happened. Most sources simply say Murray found Michael unresponsive "in his bed" (who knows if they mean to say he was tucked in and all, or he was just found laying on the bed). Nevertheless, even if there wasn't a physical collapse, Michael still collapsed into a comatose state before passing away, so I think the section name is fitting. Digitelle (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought Collapse meant fallen down. I don't think the doctor said he saw him fall. Is there a better word we can use. For now we can keep the word Collapse. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of a succinct way of putting it that's not "collapse." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A word like "unresponsive" might work better. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I for one would hope that Wikipedia eventually won't need a consensus standard opening heading for an article entitled "Death of _____". That having been said, and in view of the reasons why this article exists, why not use the lead to state something along the lines of: "Michael Jackson (or insert the next subject) notably died on (DATE)... leaving many unanswered questions and much public grief transcending his life as discussed in his biography (linked above)..."

Then the first heading would be, obviously ... "Death" Steveozone (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

For high-importance articles like this, a consensus will always need to be reached. Digitelle (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Absurd claims about the funeral need to be edited

I would like to propose changing the following sentence in the funeral section "The website set up to process applications for the tickets received more than half a billion hits in the first hour, causing the site to crash" to "The owners of the website set up to process applications for the tickets claim that it received more than half a billion hits in the first hour and a half, causing the site to crash". Half a billion is an absurd number that has not been verified by trustworthy sources. This could also lead readers to think that it corresponds to actual individual human visitors (I have seen such confusion in the press several times), which would of course be impossible as it would correspond to about a third of the number of people in the world with access to the internet (1,4 billion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoneisringing (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The 500 million figure cited at [3] does seem rather high. It is unlikely that any website could count this many hits in an hour, since it would overload and produce error messages as some other sites did in the aftermath of Jackson's death. This may well need to be rewritten/resourced. The 500 million figure is cited elsewhere [4], but Michael Jackson on Wikipedia received around a million hits in the hour after Jackson's death was announced, and 5.9 million hits on June 26.[5] These are realistic figures that would require a large server computer, and 500 million seems overboard. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: [6] Much as I respect WP:RS, "widely reported" is not the same as "true". The 500 million figure comes from the organizers and is almost certainly flawed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was reported widely by the mainstream media e.g. CBS. [7] We publish what the reliable sources say. See WP:V: "verifiability, not truth." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone here wonders why they're talking about hits and not page views. Could be a sign that someone not familiar with the Web made a mistake about the numbers? If we can find a source, we can fix it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to wander off into original research territory here, but did these sources really believe that one third of the world's population with access to the Internet logged on to one website in an hour? Repeating an implausible claim many times does not make it correct. It is more likely that the organizer has misunderstood the stats somewhere along the line, and given the figure in good faith.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

New info: 4M individual hits Trycatch (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You could email the PR firm who supplied the figure, explain your concern, and ask them to re-check. We couldn't use their response in the article, but we could use it to guide how we phrase things; or they may post a new figure on their website somewhere, in which we could use it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Trycatch, that solves it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this make sense, and the Telegraph article points out that the new figures contradict the 500 million previously given, which was always a pie in the sky figure.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

The main thing about a funeral is how the person will be buried in terms of a religious ceremony, in this case it would be a non-denominational due to the family raised as Jehovah's Witness and other being Muslim. Its an important part of the section. Dimario (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the WP:NOTNEWS issue here, we are not going to get drawn into the sort of speculation about religious beliefs that have caused such long arguments at Michael Jackson. Let's wait for the actual funeral and see what happens.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of media

This should be expanded, which I'll try and do. There has been criticism that the media has not focused enough on Jackson's musical achievements etc. I'll go looking for sources. — Please comment R ² 02:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"New York Congressman Peter King published a video on YouTube in which he spoke out against the excessive media coverage of the death of Jackson, stating that it was inappropriate that the media should glorify the life of a "child molestor" and "low-life" simply because he "may have been a good singer" and "did some dancing"[59]."

This also should be deleted ... Elmao (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, Peter King is a noteable congressman and is not your average YouTube blogger. As such, his video has recieved significant media attention (I am from the UK and his posting even made the BBC Breakfast News), and so, again is different from a non-descript YouTube vlogger's post, which would not have recieved such international media attention. Finally, I also think King's post is important for the balance of the article. Most of the media attention that is mentioned in this article is positive in nature, and Rush Lambard's comments are defending Jackson. Not everybody was a Jackson fan or happy about the attention he was getting from the media. I think this post is still needed.

Also, I do believe that the "criticism" should remain a sub-section of the media coverage. The original poster is searching for acceptable sources to expand the criticism area and several examples had already been cited in this sub-section before it was removed Billydeeuk (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Conrad Murray never made a 911 call

How long did it take for the doctor to inform others in the rented home that Jackson needs help. There seems to be something fishy here. The doctor never made a 911 call even though he had a cell phone. Why did it take so long for a 911 call to be made and how much time passed since the doctor found Jackson in bed. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely there are huge questions on this issue that remain unanswered. The answers are important, and they involve WP:BLP. We should be careful to find reliable sources for any factual assertions as to the actions of those who were present at the house at the time. Steveozone (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What happened is still very confused. I took what's in the article from an interview I watched with the attorney on CNN. Straight from the horse's lawyer's mouth. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The section about the lack of a phone call is fair and based on reliable published sources (well insofar as any source is reliable with regards to this bizarre story.) But I agree with those who think Murray's explanation makes no sense, unless it turns out that #1: Dr. Murray is a total idiot and/or #2: that the landline phones in the house were truly nonfunctional. Even if the phone service had been cut off for nonpayment of the bills, 911 calls should still be possible, unless the wires were down. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We heard he did not call 911 because he did not know the address but he could of called someone else or made a phone to the rented home. If he called the location where he was he could of got help from someone else in the house. Why it took so long for the doctor to finally get someone to call 911. What was he doing in the meantime before the 911 call was made. [Removed possible BLP violation.] Is there a reference that covers this. QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All you would have to do in those circumstances is dial 911, and tell them you're at Michael Jackson's home and don't know the address. The police in that area will know where all the major celebrities live, and in any event they can trace cell phone calls. You'd only need to dial, shout out the circumstances, drop the phone, and continue with CPR, and they would find you.

I haven't seen any reference covering this at all. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, it is hard to pick through all the media reports of what happened. According to this report, Jackson's eldest son Prince saw him collapse in the living room. "The guard and the doctor picked him up and put him on the bed from the living room, and that's when they started CPR." The voice in the 911 audio recording is said to be the security guard Tippy. There are too many WP:BLP issues to be making firm statements about what happened at the mansion, so hopefully things will be cleared up by the autopsy report.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Funeral?

What is with this ridiculous story about Michael coming back to life at his funeral? -- 114.162.145.121 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Revert it on sight. Trycatch (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Position of box

Shouldn't the box titled "Life and death of Michael Jackson" be at the top of the article instead of starting halfway down? That would seem more sensible IMO. Smartse (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's too large for the top. I placed it where we had no images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1990 image of Jackson at [8] is currently scheduled for deletion unless the copyright information is clarified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If it disappears, I'll swap it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the current position is poor. Images could be easily reshuffled and the box moved to a more fitting location. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Funeral of Michael Jackson

I've created the above to direct traffic to. Once the funeral and the aftermath are over, we can decide whether it should remain as a stand-alone, with a summary-style section here, or should be folded back in here, depending on length and quality. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A separate article on the funeral seems like over-egging the pudding. This article and Michael Jackson should be enough when all the fuss dies down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not enough sources for a separate article at this time. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

~~Will surely have to be redirected here at some point I imagine.~~ — Please comment R ² 00:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost certainly, unless something happens that justifies a stand-alone. But my thinking for tomorrow is it means people can edit the funeral page as much as they want, without being reverted because they're adding too much funeral detail to this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, it works as a stand alone. — Please comment R ² 22:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

mergefrom Funeral of Michael Jackson

A merge tag has appeared on Funeral of Michael Jackson.

Oppose the memorial was a huge internet event, and a huge TV event, of its own, and is thus suitably notable as a televised major event, and claims by the LA city government about being one of the biggest events in city history. It's worldwide television coverage also marks it as a significant event in and of itself. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge. It's a single event that can fall within the scope of his death. KyuuA4 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the memorial was one of the biggest television events of all time and worthy of an article of its own. If the two articles where merged, we would have one giant article that at some point would be nominated for splitting. magnius (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge. The combined page size will be 38 kB prose, leaving huge amounts of room for further expansion.Yob Mod 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's being discussed at Talk: Michael Jackson memorial service#Merge_into_Death_article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge, but wait until the hysteria has died down so that this can be done in a level-headed, encyclopedic, fashion. NB, article has now been moved to Michael Jackson memorial service. – ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the comments above to the discussion at the memorial talk page, unless the editor had already commented there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of media

"New York Congressman Peter King published a video on YouTube in which he spoke out against the excessive media coverage of the death of Jackson, stating that it was inappropriate that the media should glorify the life of a "child molestor" and "low-life" simply because he "may have been a good singer" and "did some dancing"[59]."

Any sense of this part? Many people posted videos on YuTube ... Could we delete this part? or write the full story : "New York Congressman Blasts Jackson as 'Pervert, Low-Life', Fox News, retrieved 06/07/09" << Seems fair to me ... Elmao (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there is sense to it. Firstly, Peter King is a noteable congressman and is not your average YouTube blogger. As such, his video has recieved significant media attention (I am from the UK and his posting even made the BBC Breakfast News), and so, again is different from a non-descript YouTube vlogger's post, which would not have recieved such international media attention. Finally, I also think King's post is important for the balance of the article. Most of the media attention that is mentioned in this article is positive in nature, and Rush Lambard's comments are defending Jackson. Not everybody was a Jackson fan or happy about the attention he was getting from the media. I think this post is still needed. Billydeeuk (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter King is not what one would call a "reliable source" about Michael Jackson's private life. As an official representative of American people, though, King should know a thing or two about how America officially treats its people. If King wants to make a spectacle of himself, he can be noted over that-a-way, but King doesn't have the right to steal the microphone just because he feels like putting on a show. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic, you blow my mind :) — Please comment R ² 20:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline

Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Cardiac Arrest" takes no article

The article says Michael Jackson suffered "a cardiac arrest". This is wrong; the term cardiac arrest takes no article, either definite or indefinite.

Correct grammar: ... suffered cardiac arrest.

Further comparative: You can suffer *a* heart attack; or you can suffer *a* stroke; or you can suffer *a* seizure. You cannot suffer *a* cardiac arrest; it's *just* "cardiac arrest".

FYI: "Cardiac arrest" simply means his heart stopped. We still don't know why his heart stopped. He may have had a heart attack; he may have had heart failure (though that seems unlikely); he may have taken something that caused his heart (which is muscle tissue) and/or his autonomic nervous system to slow down so much that everything just turned off. The only thing we know is that his heart stopped, which is what cardiac arrest means.

IMPORTANT: We do NOT know what killed Jackson. Cardiac arrest is not a cause of death; it's a symptom of death. When you die, your heart stops. Or to put it another way - you can die from a heart attack, you can die from a stroke, you can die from heart failure; you *can't* die from cardiac arrest. Rather, you die from whatever it was that *caused* the cardiac arrest; that is, you die from whatever it is that made your heart stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.56.26 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're an idiot. Cardiac arrest IS a cause of death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.50.88 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true that everyone dies of cardiac arrest but until the cause is determined, "cardiac arrest" conveys to the layperson some sense of why CPR was attempted.Brmull (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about this issue because the reports say he had a pulse but was not breating. To me, this means his heart was beating. So it appears to me that he was in respiratory arrest when found but did not go into cardiac arrest until sometime later. --Sophitessa (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Certification of Vital Record

I have the certification of Vital Record´s Michael Jackson (death) in pdf image, and would like to know, if i upload it here, what kind of Non-free use rationale and license would be necessary to use.

Thanks and best regards. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If that's the death certificate, it's already in the article. Or is it something else? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes... But i have in higher resolution... If it is possible, i will uploaded as a "new version of this file"... Lightwarrior2 (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A full PDF link is reasonable, isn't it? The existing image in the article is practically illegible. I can't see any copyright objection to a simple full-size scan of a recorded public document, without any other image content. A legible version behind the link on the article would be helpful (aside from the fact that the document itself is of course very circumspect under these particular circumstances). Steveozone (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This picture is more interesting than the wikimedia graph: http://techization.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mj-google.gif 188.155.181.11 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Murray

Suggest consolidating information relating to Dr. Murray, which is repeated multiple times throughout the article. In addition, his statements are mostly uncorroborated and should be given less prominence.Brmull (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the statements by LaToya Jackson, also uncorroborated but reported by tabloids whenever she calls and whatever she says? There is a huge BLP problem going on with edits to the article that are no more than questions and speculations raised by the admittedly incomplete and potentially inaccurate information about what the Dr. did or didn't do, or saw or knew, or didn't. There are a number of understandably upset family members who don't apparently care about their own credibility, but assertions about the doctor should be very carefully scrutinized before being noted in an encyclopedia, especially before there are reliable sources to answer some of the questions that everyone is asking. Steveozone (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Investigation

Please correct: William Bratton is the L.A. Chief of Police, not the Commissioner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmull (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Joe Jackson says it was foul play

ABC viewers keep getting subjected to commercials for the Good Morning America interview and further information on the Prime Time Family Secrets.

Whether his beliefs have any basis in fact, it sounds like at least the coverage would make the topic notable. I'm not watching any of it, but it does have me curious.

Perhaps if one of the online newspapers I look at says anything, I'll post it if there's no objection.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Notable" topics have nothing to do with reliable sources. Especially when it comes to WP:BLP issues. There's some understandably grief-stricken but unsupported assertions being made by some quoted in the tabloids and entertainment columns, and those unsupported assertions should not be used to provide "answers" to the questions that everyone is asking...let some time pass, let some reliable information develop. Steveozone (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I figured that's what we're supposed to do.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Update:they didn't even mention Joe Jackson's accusations when they promoted last night's show.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, thanks, Vc. Then again, the broadcasters didn't think Joe Jackson's statements would garner ratings? That's absurd. I'd bet there are people reading this and thinking that those statements are important, and the broadcasters' refusal to note them in promos is notable and therefore must be put in the article. Glad it's not happening. As somebody said, there'll be plenty of absurdity when the autopsy reports come out. ;) Steveozone (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a word about Joe Jackson's suspicions in the article. I didn't put anything there because I wasn't sure it was acceptable.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref remove

I am removing several references to <ref name=McCartneyJune28/>. The reference refering to McCartney does not appear to exist, and is causing errors in the references column. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A new account removed it in a series of edits. I've restored the text and the ref. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)