Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Health

Daphne Barak's interview with Grace Rwaramba is highly suspect. Not only did Rwaramba repudiate significant portions of the interview, but Barak declined to release the full video of the interview to back up her account. Suggest delete due to single unreliable source.Brmull (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Should WP be quoting Ian Halperin quoting unnamed sources? It seems very unlikely that Michael had AAT since it is a genetic condition and no one else in the family is known to be affected. Furthermore he had no apparent symptoms. Suggest delete due to single source.Brmull (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest deleting most of that looooong quote from Halperin, as well as the portions about Jackson being bald, etc, seeing as a lot of it has been pretty much proven to be false by the photos and videos released by AEG Live. I don't see why this article should suggest that maybe he wasn't able to move any more... it would suffice to say - in slightly more elaborate words - that confolcting reports emerged about Jackson's health in the weeks before his death.--afromme (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The information about baldness etc has actually been confirmed, and we don't say he couldn't move. Halperin says on some days he couldn't sing, or even speak. I see no reason we should exclude him as a source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certain levels of evidence. What I consider Tier I: what everyone can see with their own eyes. Tier II: the official statements. Tier III: first person accounts consistent with other reports. Tier IV: first person accounts uncorroborated or inconsistent with other reports. Tier V: hearsay consistent with other reports. Tier VI: hearsay that is uncorroborated or inconsistent with other reports. Tier VII: accounts based on multiple unnamed sources. Tier VIII: accounts based on a single unnamed source. Tier IX: rumor and gossip. There needs to be some effort to differentiate higher quality and lower quality evidence. For example, La Toya in her interview with the Daily Mail stated unequivocally that Michael was not bald. Is there a higher level of evidence (i.e. Tier I, II, III, or IV) that is in conflict with La Toya's statement? If not, how can WP justify going with CNN's (at best) Tier VII report? Can we agree on some ground rules here???Brmull (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Law-enforcement sources who saw him say he had very little, or no, hair. The source is in the article. [1] His doctor Arnie Klein said something similar to Larry King, just not as unequivocal. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The unnamed source in the CNN article says, "Jackson had paper white skin. As white as a white T-shirt ... The singer also did not have any hair." Well, there are pictures of Jackson in the ambulance which appear to contradict both of those statements. It doesn't mean CNN's whole story is wrong, but the specific point of his appearance is rebutted by both the photos and La Toya's on the record statement. How do we know CNN's "investigative source" actually knows anything about this? Maybe he's just some guy who works in the sheriff's office? We don't know because he won't allow himself to be identified.Brmull (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This depth of analysis is just not what we should be doing here; we are not an editorial body, analysing evidence and reporting our own conclusions. We should be reporting what the reliable sources state, without drawing conclusions, and certainly without any speculation from those sources. Although we may debate the reliability of sources here, we should not engage in an analysis of the implications of the various levels of reliability. That is pure original research. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't investigate the reliable sources' sources. If it's a mainstream news organization like CNN, and if they're willing to devote considerable time to it, and they say it comes direct from someone involved in the investigation, you can be sure that it does. That doesn't mean it's true, of course, but we can never be certain of that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I believe there are situations in which WP should state that a Reliable Source is quoting an unnamed source, or when a Reliable Source is quoting an unreliable source, such as a tabloid. In the latter case, it would be better to omit the reference or at least refer to the tabloid directly.Brmull (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I left the stuff about Halperin, despite the reservations noted above, but I tried to rework it a bit to better capture what Halperin actually said. He is a problematic source because his writing blends fact and conjecture in such as way that you have to parse his words very carefully or you end up assuming too much. As better sources become available I think we should reconsider how much these looooong quotes really add to the article.Brmull (talk) 10:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, Halperin never actually wrote that Jackson was "unable to sing or even speak" He may have implied it, but I believe it shouldn't be included as a direct quote. Brmull (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The source says exactly that: "He could no longer sing, for a start. On some days he could barely talk." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Being "unable" to speak is different than "he could barely talk." Barely is a weasel word. Also Halperin never said Jackson had this disease. He was speculating based on an injection he heard Jackson was receiving. (It should perhaps be pointed out that the medicine goes by the brand name PROlastin, not to be confused with PROpofol which is what others have said he was taking.)Brmull (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapse

I propose that the section be renamed "Timeline" in concordance with other WP "Death of" articles. The report that he collapsed derives from the NY Post's June 28 "exclusive" with Jackson family biographer Stacy Brown, and has not been corroborated. I am updating the references to clarify when information ultimately derives from this NY Post story, given criticism about the credibility of this tabloid.Brmull (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• If this change is accepted, Health would become its own section.Brmull (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording changes

I would suggest altering 'triggered an outpouring of grief' to read 'generated a huge amount of publicity' or something similar, given that the rest of the sentence suggests that grief was behind the spike in internet traffic, extended media coverage, etc whereas Jackson's celbrity was the primary motivating factor. If an iconic figure dies, of course it will generate a significant reaction. 206.223.190.7 (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the concern. I think it would be best handled by splitting this into two sentences: "...outpouring of grief. Internet traffic surged and sales of his music soared." It's important that the introductory paragraph summarize the article, without going into too much detail. For this reason I am also re-proposing that the part about Dr. Murray doesn't belong in the introduction.Brmull (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

DEA and LAPD

I propose reworking (and perhaps renaming) this section to better explain the roles of the various agencies involved. For starters, I propose deleting the part about "The involvement of the DEA means that doctor-patient confidentiality is overruled..." Other sources have indicated the main role of the DEA is to track interstate drug shipments and to determine if propofol should be added to the list of controlled substances. As a legal matter, any legal authority can go to court and try to subpoena someone's medical records. The DEA does not have any special standing in this regard.Brmull (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brmull, it's worth bearing our policies in mind before you rework anything. All we do here is report what reliable sources are saying. We don't interpret (unless they do), we don't question other people's sources (unless they do), we don't point out that some sources have it wrong (unless they do). We are glorified stenographers—often without the "glorified." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Granted I'm a newbie and I'm trying to be open minded, but I don't see how an offhand comment by a participant in an AC360 program should be paraphrased in the article as if it were Truth. But if that is indeed the case I propose we conclude the article with, "Michael is alive and well and happier than ever." (The Sun, June 30, 2009). You know, to balance out all the negative stuff :)Brmull (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As with all US law enforcement agents, there are limits even to the DEA's reach (see, at minimum, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution). The sentence would be more accurate, still supported by the source, and less confusing, by stating that the "DEA has certain authority to investigate facts otherwise protected by doctor-patient confidentiality." Steveozone (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists

I propose deleting the paragraph about Dr. Metzger since it mainly concerns Janet Jackson. Singling out Dr. Metzger implies that he has special significance to Michael Jackson's death. If we are going to list him we should list all the doctors reported to have treated Jackson. That would be controversial too, of course. Perhaps it's best to just indicate that multiple health care providers were investigated, and the reader can follow the links if he/she wants to know more.Brmull (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of all the information under the sun. Listing all the doctors would be controversial, provided there is any information to be found. Dr. Metzger is noted in the article because he was a main ... suspect ... in the investigation. He has had a history with the Jackson family, including Michael, and did some shady work with Janet. Other major suspects are noted in the "Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists" section as well. You might need consensus before deletion. Blanking a paragraph can be considered vandalism. TechOutsider (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Brmull, please don't remove this again. It's correctly sourced:

"Against that, two sources involved with the investigation told CNN on July 8 that, when he died, he was emaciated, bald, and extremely pale, with numerous track marks on his arms, and collapsed veins, suggesting sustained intravenous drug use. One of the sources said he had never seen anything like it in decades of investigative work."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Metzger passage as per WP:BLP. If the article is going to mention Metzger (or anyone else who could potentially get WP into hot water or be gotten into hot water by WP), then it needs to ensure that its reasons for doing so are crystal-clear. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also changed the section name to "Medical professionals". Compared to the "Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists" phrasing, it strikes me as a little more succinct and encyclopedic--indeed, more professional (not to mention less...familiar). Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You've also removed all the names, including Murray's lawyer, and the chief investigator for the coroner's office, that are mentioned widely by mainstream news organizations. It would be obtuse of us, and more than a little strange, not to include them.

Why do you think the Metzger passage is a BLP violation? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the names because that is what WP:BLPNAME indicates should be done: "Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where...they are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; for instance, because...they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals" (emphasis added). Indeed, this even applies--explicitly--to the names of notable individuals' family members. So, as for a notable individual's doctor's lawyer? Well, I suppose that people's active involvement in the case amounts to more than mere association or relation, but it still raises the question of what "significant value" is added to the article if they're identified by name. But I think I actually applied BLP rather conservatively, mostly eliminating the names that aren't sparking much interest anyway (just how important is is that anyone knows the name of Jackson's nurse or Jackson's doctor's lawyer?); I could easily (perhaps even more convincingly) make a case for avoiding Murray's name as well: e.g., he hasn't been formally implicated in anything, he hasn't been going out of his way to draw attention to himself, etc. As for the Metzger passage, the vast majority of it had nothing to do with the subject of the article. It was about Metzger's unusual prescriptions for Michael's sister. Sure, it concluded with Metzger's denying any role in Michael's death, but never did it make particularly clear why the possibility of Metzger's having any role should even be considered. The undercurrent might have been something like, "Hey, this guy made some suspicious prescriptions to another Jackson family member, so you've gotta wonder..." But as long as it's only an undercurrent, it's original research, and original research is doubly frowned upon in BLPs. If some sort of connection between Jackson's death and Metzger can be made explicit (without being given undue weight), then of course any editor is free to bear the WP:BURDEN of confirming it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP should never be used to remove material as well-sourced as this. It cautions against including unnecessary names, such as family members of people involved in the events, not the key figures themselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic, Metzger has been written about by mainstream news organizations in relation to this situation. Mentioning him is not OR. OR is when something cannot be sourced at all. Please read the policies before removing any more material from this article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't touch your quote, Slim. I may have said some harsh words about it a ways back but that's water under the bridge. My vote on this name thing: don't name Metzger, don't name Ratner, name Klein, name Murray, don't name Murray's lawyer, name the medical examiner (he's famous from the O.J. case), don't name anyone else from the coroner's office.Brmull (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Metzger material is not sufficiently relevant and should be taken out. The material describes an ugly situation involving a family member of MJ, not MJ himself (which is "relevant" only to the extent it leads to the speculative "undercurrent" mentioned above). Without information indicating that Metzger did somehow participate in events pertinent to MJ's death (the topic at hand) BLP applies double-- the interests of two LP's are affected. Murray and Klein are different, as they have been shown to have been currently treating MJ as of the time of his death. Steveozone (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Metzger has been taken out. Brmull, the lawyer named himself and has spoken on CNN on behalf of Murray. There's no harm done in naming him, and no reason not to. Ratner was named by CNN on the 360 show, among others. Again, BLP isn't supposed to be used to remove names that are widely discussed by mainstream media. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte, you're decimating the article. Please stop it. If you want to remove something that's well-sourced, please discuss it here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I figured the edit summaries would pretty much speak for themselves, but here goes:

• Lengthy Chopra quotation: Excessive reliance on direct quotation. Already clear through paraphrasing. The following Chopra lines (on "enabling") might add relatively more colour, but even they are summarized pretty well before they're actually presented.
• Jesse Jackson line: No idea why you reverted this. "Reverend" takes a definite article when used before a person's name, and the journalistic "(no relation)" makes for clunky syntax in an encyclopedia. Even better yet would be to state why Jesse Jackson was involved.
• Nation of Islam stuff: Most of this is about Jackson's life (not his death) or consists of BLP statements of astoundingly unclear relevance to Jackson's death.
• Murray's bio: Again, BLP statements of unclear relevance. Information does not default to inclusion just because it can be verified. We don't know what, if anything, Murray's background had to do with Jackson's death. We do know that Jackson's death sparked some interest in Murray, as we also know it triggered public awareness of propofol. But this article is no more the place to digress about Murray's background than the place to wander off about the history or chemistry of Diprivan. It also is not the place to start implicating Murray's CPR. We don't even know the cause of death yet. We don't know if Murray could have done anything at all to save him. All we know is that there are rumours and speculations, even as WP:BLP reminds us that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." If the article, in effect, accuses Murray of malpractice, and if the autopsy turns out to vindicate Murray completely, then that ain't good. (By the way, I'm not necessarily meaning to suggest that the mention of Murray's CPR should be omitted entirely, but rather that, at the very least, it might have undue weight and an inappropriate tone--more like that of a prosecuting attorney than like that of an encyclopedia.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, that's a bit long to read. The point is that we publish what reliable sources have published in relation to the death of Michael Jackson. That's all we do. We don't insert our personal opinions, either by adding material just because we like it, or by removing material just because we don't. Is there anything in the article that you feel is not sourced properly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps just deal with one example to begin with? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

One reason Murray's lawyer shouldn't be named is that there are now too many of them. Murray has at least two lawyers, plus a public relations firm, plus his lawyers have lawyers. Who cares what their names are? As for Ratner, I personally think what he did on the HIStory tour was terrible. He's served prison time and yet he continues to be allowed to practice. But as you can tell my desire to see him named is emotionally-based and certanly a red flag that he should NOT be named.Brmull (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brmull, putting our personal views to one side, what do you see as the problem of mentioning Ratner, given that mainstream news organizations have done so?

And if Murray has several lawyers now, all the more reason to name the one that said X. Plus, there's no reason not to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[outdent, or something] SlimVirgin, I'm well-read in WP policy. But in case you do, after all, know better than I, I'll just put things in your own words: "We have to take the longer term view with BLPs. We have the ability to affect an entire life by making a rash decision and publicizing unnecessarily some stupid mistake that someone might have made. Better to wait to see how and whether reliable sources develop the issue." Taking "develop" as the operative word in that last sentence, we see that the BLP Metzger passage was not developed in connection to Jackson's death. It was mostly a digression about Metzger and Janet Jackson. The BLP passages about the Nation of Islam and about Murray's background were also tangential. We don't even know if Murray's CPR has any relation (apart from chronology, which in itself is logically meaningless) to Jackson's death. It is particularly important for BLP material to avoid implying undeveloped connections to sensitive events. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further to that point, the article reads "Murray, who is not board-certified..." where there is absolutely no reason to believe that MJ needed or sought the specialized care of a cardiologist, whether board-certified or not (there is no question that Murray is a qualified, licensed physician, and indeed no question that he could practice cardiology, even if he has not obtained board-certification).

The paragraph goes on to state that Murray "filed for bankruptcy in 1992, and is reported to have had judgments filed against him or his company totalling over $435,000." So what? This doesn't tell us anything about whether the Dr. may have contributed to MJ's death. There's no surprise that those facing substantial judgments file bankruptcy relief at some point, nor any reason to believe that those legal claims and judgments have anything to do with what the Dr. did or did not do that may have related to MJ's death. After all, MJ himself was sued many times, and paid countless millions to settle legal claims. Is there any reason to believe that MJ's legal problems are relevant here?

These points appear to be relevant only to provide some illogical "support" for the unsupported speculation regarding (as yet unanswered) questions regarding the Dr.'s actions or inactions. Steveozone (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fun to be the first to post newsworthy information, but then again, perhaps it is much more fun to say "I told you so" when the New York Times or somesuch publishes something, and then retracts it within a few hours. Steveozone (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Error

small gramatical error in the side bar it says "analgesia abuse" when it should say analgesic abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.132.120 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Karoshi

I wonder if Michael Jackson's death can be classified as karoshi, "death from overwork". 68.32.48.221 (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I wonder as well. I also hope that soon the coroner's report is released, and "all hell breaks loose," so we can all finally get to work on fixing this thing with some reliable information. Just me. Your mileage may vary. Steveozone (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Murdered?

Is it true Michael was killed by the CIA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.32.205 ([[User talk:66.167.32.205|talk]]) 02:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No. What would the motive be? Stonemason89 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To steal his nose, obviously. Steveozone (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing nose

As the source is Rolling Stone, I am just wondering whether or not this new info warrants corroboration and inclusion in the article.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The source is [2]--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be mentioned until we know the identity of the alleged witness. But even then, what does this really have to do with his death? magnius (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first part of what you wrote. As for the second, if Einstein's nose vanished off his face while he was in the morgue, I think it would and should make it into his article. It seems notable. Also, I thought this Talk section might draw discussion here before a whole bunch of insane edits are made in the article.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

About the article. It references to Jackson as "Jacko". No reliable media source does that, see answer three in the Michael Jackson FAQ.

“ No. The "Jacko" nickname should not be mentioned in the lead. Past consensus goes against such inclusion. The name is a derogatory term used primarily by US/UK/Australian tabloids. The slogan is discussed in the relevant section of the article. ”

And the Rolling Stone cites anon witnesses. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New development

CNN is now reporting that a source close to the Jackson family states that one of his doctors, who had previously denied giving Jackson diprovan, may have indeed done so. You'll have to check out CNN for specifics. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The CNN report doesn't mention which drug.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize article (7/27/09)

Based on emerging information, I wonder if we should make the following reorganization of the first half of the article. What do you think?

 1 Death 
 2 Health
   2.1 Drug use allegations 
 3 Investigation 
   3.1 Autopsy
   3.2 Toxicology
       3.2.1 Propofol
   3.3 Dr. Murray
   3.4 Dr. Klein
   3.5 Personal advisers
 4 Family 
 5 Will and legal affairs 
 6 Reaction 
   6.1 Media and Internet coverage 
   6.2 Grief 
   6.3 Tributes 
   6.4 Record sales 
 7 Memorial 
 8 References
 9 Further reading and external links 
   9.1 Obituaries Brmull (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lede

The Lede has not been updated since the first days after Jackson's death. Since then much more information has become known which may be more pertinent than what is presented. Below is a possible change followed by some notes:

---

Michael Jackson suffered cardiac arrest at his home in Holmby Hills, Los Angeles, California on June 25, 2009. He was 50 years old.[1]

Investigators believe Jackson died after his personal physician gave the singer an intravenous drip of the anesthetic propofol to help him sleep. This drug is only supposed to be administered under continuous monitoring with oxygen and artificial ventilation equipment immediately available.[2]

Jackson’s sudden death triggered an outpouring of grief around the world. Internet traffic surged and sales of his music soared.[3] He was preparing to perform 50 sold-out concerts at London's O2 arena from July 2009 through March 2010, his first major tour since 1997.[4]

Jackson’s memorial was broadcast live from Staples Center in Los Angeles, where he had rehearsed the evening before his death. The memorial attracted a global audience of up to one billion people.[5][6]

---

Rationale for changes: - Medics working on Jackson for two hours is not important enough to be in the Lede. It also suggests the actual time of death is known, when it's not (at least until the coroner's report) - The Demerol story was ultimately sourced only to TMZ which has backed away from their claim. No one is reporting this anymore. In contrast, multiple media outlets are reporting that Jackson died because Murray gave him propofol. - The other proposed changes are just minor language edits, plus reference [4] doesn't have the right concert dates. A better reference is provided. - It's possible more changes will be required after the coroner's report is released, but I think the above changes are a step in the right direction.Brmull (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good in my opinion. It is a little vague, not many specifics are mentioned. I think that mentioning his age is a great idea. However, I also think information about which hospital he went to should also be present. His personal physician should also be named. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the line about the investigators believe should be removed. All that we know is that "Sources claim or believe" that jackson was given an IV drip. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Toxicology

Shouldn't the results be back? Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They are. It's just not quite "official" yet.

Judge approves Michael Jackson film

A judge approved a major movie deal today. Meanwhile, it is confirmed that Jackson was laid to rest at Forest Lawn Cemetery. Finally! Story --Angeldeb82 (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Burial

There is a report in a tabloidesque-source that Jackson will be buried at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills). [4] Any confirmation?   Will Beback  talk  07:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Associated Press, his body is at the aforementioned place, however there is no final word. See here. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it doesn't appear to be confirmed yet I'll remove the entry from the cemetery.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that Jackson will be buried in Forest Lawn Glendale. — Σxplicit 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Once the burial has occured we can add it.   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New Page

I was wondering would it be a good idea to start another page that focuses on the entertainers reaction to MJ's Death? ITalkTheTruth (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest

why do people keep erasing what I added about the doctor's pending arrest? It was in the papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk • contribs) .

Because, if you read that source, it states quite clearly "claimed", and per this policy, and here we wait until an arrest has been reliably reported before including it here. Not everything that appears in newspapers is correct. Rodhullandemu 17:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. But the newspaper article says "Michael Jackson's doctor is to be charged with manslaughter, according to reports in the U.S.. Dr Conrad Murray will be arrested within a fortnight by Los Angeles detectives investigating the death of the 50-year-old pop icon." Why can't we say that it was reported that he will be arrested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Japanese government reaction

Does there really have to be an entire paragraph stating the reaction of various members of the Japanese government? I mean, almost every world leader made a statement when MJ died, isn't this a little imbalanced and irrelevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.119.136 (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AP reporting Michael Jackson's death is officially a homicide

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=6962245

Ought this page be moved to Murder of Michael Jackson then? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Found a better ref and inserted it into the lead. I leave further revision up to those who've built the article. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Every murder is a homicide, but not every homicide is a murder. It's still way to early to be jumping to conclusions based on reports from unnamed sources, before anyone has been charged, let alone convicted. Steveozone (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not an unnamed source, it's the LA County coroner, but you may be right about legal distinctions. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...what's "unofficial" about it? The AP is reporting that Michael Jackson's death is a homicide. Unless I blinked and missed the AP not being a reliable source, Michael Jackson's death is, officially, a homicide. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I favor renaming the article to Murder of Michael Jackson. Even if it is technically a homicide and not a murder, article names should be based on common usage, not on legal technicalities. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet. Legal technicalities can make the difference between liability for libel and not, and it's much to early to tell, and nobody has been charged. Even so, a murder charge may be reduced by the prosecutor, judge or jury, or on a plea bargain to manslaughter, 3rd degree murder, or culpable homicide, so it's way, way , too early even to consider this from an encyclopedic point of view. WP:BLP applies to any living person, including those who may be charged. I suggest we wait. Rodhullandemu 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. That was an excellent explanation. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Homicide simply means one person kills another, even if by accident or negligence. The word "murder", though ill defined, in common law generally carries a very heavy connotation of intent to kill. Thus, murder would be a very bad word to use in relation to Jackson, even if some doctor is eventually convicted of manslaughter (which could happen).

Incidentally, the drugs reported today from the autopsy show pretty clearly that Jackson died of a drug-induced respiratory arrest. With no breathing or oxygen, eventually his heart stopped. That is exactly what was reported earlier by the doctor who said he found him not breathing, but with a pulse. However, following the reports of very many papers that Jackon somehow died OF cardiac arrest (as though his heart stopping was the primary cause of his death) I was reverted in changing his cause of death in the timeline to "respiratory arrest," until we knew more. Well, I was right. And so much for the "reliability" of what newspapers report. Ultimately most people die "of" cardiac arrest, but putting this "cardiac arrest" as the proximate cause on a death certificate usually doesn't help anything. Health statisticians ignore it, and well they should. SBHarris 04:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

who's the genius...

who slapped "citation needed" after every sentence? In the first paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Michael_Jackson#Death all the facts are clearly mentioned in the article at the end of the paragraph. Is it a wiki rule that this source should therefore be cited in a reference at the end of every single sentence in the paragraph. If that is the rule, might I humbly suggest it's a stupid rule. If it's not a rule, can someone please remove all the excessive and unneeded "citation needed" boxes? THANK YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.216.66 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing stopping you from doing it yourself. Looks like it was done by User:174.49.29.13 in a string of edits, just one of which was reverted by User:JTSchreiber. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. I didn't have time yesterday to check the references to make sure that they covered everything, but all the new "citation needed"stuff may well be bogus. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Conrad Murray

Shouldn't Murray have his own article????(LonerXL (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

I was about to ask this same question, yeah I agree he should have his own article. KingRaven (>$.$)> (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

His article was created in late June and turned into a redirect in early August; see Talk:Conrad Murray. Qzm (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)