Jump to content

Talk:Michael Jackson memorial service/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Crowd Numbers

Assistant Police Commissioner Jim McDonald can be quoted as saying there were more like 5-8000 in the crowd opposed to the 750,000 some people were claiming. He was on the Australian 'Today' show. Someone should look that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdaddybomb (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Guest List

I heard on CNN that Chris Brown was there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.61.134 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Religion?

shouldn't there be a mention of what type of religious ceremony will be at the funeral, either christian or muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.196.173 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • His mother is a Jehovah's Witness. Reportedly that's how she wants.
As yet I see, the ceremony isn't islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.77.131 (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It was confirmed on BBC News as a Jehovah's Witness ceremonyStephenBHedges (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This Pastor Lucious Smith is a Baptist minister and he introduced himself as the family's pastor. Friendship Baptist Church in Pasadena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.135.152 (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Broadcasting TV in Europe

Some TV broadcasting memorial service (at least for a while):

  • English: CNN, BBC World, Sky News, Euronews, France 24, E!
  • German: Phoenix, ZDFinfokanal, N24, Eins Extra, ORF1, NTV
  • Polish: TVP Info
  • France: France 24, NRJ Paris, BFM TV, Direct 8, TV 5 Monde, France 2, M6
  • Portugal: RedeRecord, ATP Internacional
  • Dutch (NL): Nederland3, RTL4, SBS6, (BE): Kentnet/Canvas, Jim,
  • Czech: ČT24, Z1, Óčko
  • Slovak: TA3, STV2

--Li-sung (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


In the UK it's on BBC Two, BBC News (Same programme as BBC World), Five, Sky Arts 1 In Ireland it's on RTÉ Two, and TV3:

"No-one seems to know when this will be over, by the way. We just rang CNN in Atlanta, they haven't a clue either." [1]

--81.152.222.192 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I added NTV Turkey to the list. Mavromatis (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I added E!, as it was broadcast on this channel on Sky Digital. Grovers (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Blow by blow account

I know it's inevitable, and I have given up trying to clean this article up until it's over, but do we really need the Twitter style, blow by blow account? This is an encyclopedia not a news outlet... OK rant over... – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same, we should have a paragraph of information about the proceddings of the event instead of update by update.StephenBHedges (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Twitter has a lot to answer for. Wikipedia articles cannot be written in bite-sized up-to-the-minute installments, but patience is needed until after the funeral, when a lot of the tweet-style edits can be cleaned up or removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we should let people edit for now and not try to clean up too much. It will start to take shape eventually. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Entertainment ranking

It makes sense to compare this to Elvis Presley's funeral, as they were both entertainment figures. But is a comparison to Princess Diana accurate? She was not really in the entertainment industry. After all, we are not comparing Michael Jackson's funeral to that of a president or a military leader. I'm not sure, just opening it for discussion. Thank you. — Michael J 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

nice - jerk. Keep opinions to yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.188 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article isn't comparing his death to Diana's in an entertainment sense. I believe it's linked with regards to how many people watched the memorial service, in comparison to that of Princess Diana. AdamD123 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested source

The major newspapers like the LA Times and NY Times have done running blogs that can cite the entire event and what happened for inline citations. From my experience with other articles, The NY Times blog is more likely to stay stable and not deadlink. --Bobak (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the BBC News Source aswell as this source which i feel verify the text. If anyone feels differently do what you wish StephenBHedges (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Paris Jackson

Paris Jackson didn't say that Michael was a good father. She said the was the BEST father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.57.109 (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

She also said: "I love YOU, so much!"(not "I love him" as many crappy media report) Someone fix-it plz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.23.58 (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

She also began to address the crowd before Janet prompted her to speak up. The prompt came because the mic wasn't picking her voice up clearly. I direct you to the footage for confirmation. This may be a minor point, but seeing as there is a lot of criticism drifting around to the effect that she was 'exploited' to speak and so on, it seems important to note that she appeared to speak entirely of her own accord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.68.79 (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Bacon

The mention of Richard Bacon the BBC Radio Presenter is untrue. He was not at the event and he did not sing. He has mentioned this on his twitter feed. http://twitter.com/richardpbacon 86.27.142.163 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jennifer Hudson

Jennifer Hudson is not mentioned in the performances and should be added. Her version of "Will You Be There" was incredible. It was performed along with the dancers who would have been part of the last concert. The Michael Jackson voiceover was also prepared for that final concert. Thus, this portion of the memorial was the same arrangement to be used in the final concert. This information from CNN describing the performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.173.43 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair use claim for File:Parisjacksonafterspeech.jpg

I can't find any part of the identified BBC video source that corresponds to the uploaded still image. The closest I could get is 25 sec, and its from the wrong angle, never mind the difference in aspect ratio and resolution. If this is not the source, this image should be removed from the article, and the image tagged as having a disputed fair use rationale MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check the source again. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a CNN video that shows that angle, I think, so I'll post it, though this misses the point somewhat. All these images are owned by AEG Live. The uploaded may have recorded it himself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I am being oversensitive about this image, but please can we leave it commented out until others have expressed a view at WP:MCQ? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I really do think you are being oversensitive. She got on stage willingly, was recorded live willingly, and it was broadcast globally. There really is no BLP issue there. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The source is still wrong, all it leads to is a general CNN page, not the video claimed as the source. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I linked to the video. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that "http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2009/07/07/sot.paris.jackson.aeglive" is redirecting to "http://edition.cnn.com/video/", which suggest to me they pulled it, which would explain why I cannot find it on that page. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I can still see it at the first link. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I presume you aren't in America, so it can't be a region issue. Can others please confirm? (and state your location) P.S. Slim, can you post the frame time. MickMacNee (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody replied, so I uploaded this image which I know for certain came from the BBC video. It has no commercial, BLP or rationale issues either. All that is required is a justification against the inevitable NFC8 nomination. I've added it to the article but don't expect it to remain there by the time I reach the end of this sentence. MickMacNee (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still in! I am win. MickMacNee (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Memorial for Michael Jackson

The article discusses more than the funeral, it discusses the memorial service, as well as statements that weren't even made at the memorial (i.e. the Obama quote). –xenotalk 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Funeral do have services, and this was it. I suggest we wait to see tomorrow how most of the media describes it, and act accordingly. Also, we don't know whether he was buried today, which impacts on how we describe it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned it was because the TV station I'm watching was just calling it the same. –xenotalk 21:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A funeral does have services, but there has not been a funeral yet. This is crystal ballism to say there was a funeral. QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to moving it. I just wonder whether there's a need to do that today, or whether we should wait to find out whether he was buried today. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
When did the funeral take place. That would be crystal ballism. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, the article itself states that his final resting place hasn't even been finalized, how could there have been a funeral? –xenotalk 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're all sure you want to move it, you'll need to ask an uninvolved admin to unprotect it. User:J.delanoy was the one who protected it against being moved. Or ask an admin to make the move for you. Memorial for Michael Jackson would be the best title. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The article should be moved to match the name of the event that was aired worldwide on 7/7/09 that is best known as as 'Michael Jackson Memorial Service'. Thats how it's being reported in the news and is how it should be titled here.--RadioFan (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The move protection seems to be a standard pre-emptive move protection against grawping. It's not in place due to move-warring, so I don't think JD needs contacted. That being said, I'll wait for a few more people to weigh in before performing the move. –xenotalk 22:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Xeno is correct. I only move-protected it because of its visibility. J.delanoygabsadds 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The text is not sourced at Memorial services. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That has always been my understanding. A memorial service is held where, for example, the body was not found, or the family has already buried it, or intends to bury it at some later date. If the casket is there, and the body is buried that day, it's a funeral. That's why I think we're better to wait until tomorrow in case we find out then whether he was buried today. I'm not objecting to a move now, so if others want it, that's fine, but I think waiting is a better idea. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you saying you want to throw out the whole article on funeral? It reads "Funerary customs comprise the complex of beliefs and practices used by a culture to remember the dead, from the funeral itself, to various monuments, prayers, and rituals undertaken in their honour." Ucla90024 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, the wikipedia article on funeral is subtly wrong by being over-general. In English this word has more specific connotations. Thus, the Wiki article needs an addendum that the most common use of the word "funeral" is for the memorial rites BEFORE burial or cremation, and with the body present. Use a dictionary, rather than Wikipidia. "Memorial" is a more encompassing term, but one that is nearly mandatory if the body has already been "disposed of." For example, see some religions have memorial services which can occur years after death, but they are NEVER refered to as funeral services. Thus, what Jackson had today was both funeral and memorial, but since the first word is more specific and correct, it should be used.SBHarris 01:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the plural services idea. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
If there are objections, we should do a requested move poll. I definitely wouldn't want to see it called "Memorial services for Michael Jackson". Either Memorial for ... or Funeral for ..., but no unnecessarily long title, please. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, the reasoning was to stave off the concerns as raised by Edison below. –xenotalk 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Google hits for titles

Google hits for potential titles. These can differ a lot depending on when and from where the search is made, but this will give us a rough estimate. We're not bound by the figures, but we can let them guide us.

  • Funeral of Michael Jackson, 11,800
  • Memorial for Michael Jackson, 207,000
  • Michael Jackson funeral, 15,500,000
  • Michael Jackson memorial, 31,700,000
  • Michael Jackson memorial service, 33,600,000

SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I just ran the same tests and (as you can see) boldly performed the move to Michael Jackson memorial service. –xenotalk 14:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I endorse the move. Looking at Google News, which includes a higher proportion of reliable sources than Google, the numbers were "Michael Jackson Funeral" 914, Michael Jackson Memorial 11,075, and "Michael Jackson Memorial Service" 6615. I support having "service" at the end to distinguish the event from some marble mausoleum. Edison (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, and don't forget that "Michael Jackson Memorial" is contained in "Michael Jackson Memorial Service", so the greater number of hits is inevitable. I agree that "Michael Jackson memorial" brings to mind a giant statue, moonwalking, with a single white glove =) –xenotalk 14:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I also endorse this move. This is the title readers will most likely be looking for and it accurately describes the focus of the article.--RadioFan (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse too. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

$25,000 gold-plated, 48 ounce, solid bronze "Promethean" casket?

This seems ridiculously light. Is 48 oz. the gold content? This sentence seems to say the whole casket wieghs 3 pounds.206.45.135.233 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Image of Children

Wouldn't this image be appropriate under the service section?Candyo32 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as we aim to respect the commercial opportunities of the copyright holders. While this is a current news story, they will be aiming to benefit from this image, which does not belong to us, and which we have little right to use, ethically or legally. J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Casket Image

I recorded the Sky News broadcast onto HD and then played back, paused and grabbed...what's so hard to believe? If it is against copyvio to do this, fair enough, if not what's the problem? magnius (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The image has a very high commercial value. It is not acceptable for us to take images from other news sources and use them ourself, as that replaces the original market role of the image, and thus reduces the value to the copyright holder. For more information, see the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I apologise for the violation. magnius (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Didn't they allow non-press to bring cameras into the stadium? I think NFCC #1 probably holds for most of these images, no? –xenotalk 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I am fairly confident that, if we hold, we will be able to get hold of free images. In the mean time, these images are clearly not acceptable as per NFCC#2, and so should be removed on sight. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it's too early to say whether any freely licensed images exist so we shouldn't be publishing fair use images in the mean time. It is up to the editor that uploads the fair use image to have made every effort to locate a free use alternative first, not just make a claim that it is unlikely that any have been taken or exist. Certainly for the images of living persons, like the fair use images of the children that have been uploaded, this holds even more true, a casket image is likely to be less replaceable however. The fair use images also need to be suitably downsized so as to remove any possibility of reproduction and thereby limit their commercial value. Mfield (Oi!) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
      • From a pure physics standpoint, a free image of the casket outside is going to be easier to obtain with crappy amatuer camera gear than a usable image of anybody on the stage. And by the looks of it, any amateur snapper inside had a better chance of getting the casket aswell. MickMacNee (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a genneric image of a Promethean casket be acceptable as a pictorial example? Google is full of such images [1], and a lot of sites seem to share these images, so are they free use? magnius (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Many websites "take" images without worrying about copyright. Wikipedia is not such a website, we would need to find a freely licensed version. Try an advanced Flickr search. –xenotalk 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Or write to the company that makes them, and ask if they'll release an image. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For more information about that, see this page. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of image File:Michael Jackson funeral BBC video 8137700 frame 27s.jpg on grounds of commercial use

J Milburn is removing this image from the article multiple times. His first reason? "Incredibly high commercial value, replaces original market role of media." Absolutely false, this is a 75% downscale of a screen shot of a web news video, for a start, they are not even the same media, secondly, the low resolution is sufficient to preserve any commercial use the BBC could claim, which is effectively zero as their only value is using it as a news article. His second reason, "That doesn't suddenly make it ok. This is a current news story, we have no right to steal images from other news sources". This is nonsense, we do not have any special category in the non-free content restrictions for current news stories. MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Did they allow non-press to bring cameras into the stadium? –xenotalk 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Whether they did or did not, MickMacNee, you need to review the NFCC. We respect commercial opportunities, and, though there's no "special category", while this is a current press story, news sources will obviously be aiming to benefit from their images. As such, we should not be using them. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
It is not a commercial news image, it is a low resolution still of a web video. It is not a commercial rights violation in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A web video used by a commercial news source... J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A low resolution still of a web video used as a news source. Ignoring the crucial difference as it pertains to the NFC is not an argument. MickMacNee (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
both #1 and #2 still seem to apply. –xenotalk 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, what "crucial difference" are you pointing at? Are you denying that the BBC is a news source? J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I am stating that the BBC do not use low resolution still images of their web news videos for commercial purposes in any way shape or form that this particular frame is going to infringe upon. But I am quite sure you already knew that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
So you feel that, for that reason, it's acceptable to use said screenshot without permission in our own article about the topic? J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much what a non-free use rationale is for. Crazy I know. MickMacNee (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry? J Milburn (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The event or stadium regulations will definitely explicitly state that any recording or photgraphing inside not done with a permit, is not permissable for commerical use. So no image obtained that way can be uploaded to Wikipedia. There is nothing to stop someone who violated the rules to upload something to Commons, on the same principle as uploading Museum images, the liability then is between the event/stadium and the uploader. There is no reasonable expectation of a legally obtained (by the photographer) free alternative of this image, if their ultimate intention is to upload it to Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I would be happy to bet a moderate amount of money that there will be fan made (IE- non-press) photographs circulating the Internet in the next few days, if there are not already. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the whole point that we're looking for a free image, not one for commercial use? –xenotalk 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
A free image would be one for commercial use. However, that is not the only point- another point is that, even if such an image could not be found, a non-free image would only be permissable if it was absolutely necessary, and if the potential imapact to the copyright holder was absolutely minimal. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
<slaps forehead> of course. NFCC/imaging obviously not my strong suit =) –xenotalk 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by free exactly. The definition as I explained it above is certainly not compatible with arguing for the respecting of commercial rights. But yes, if someone steals an image and uploads it to Commons, that is probably 'better' from a Foundation liability POV than if someone uses it under an invalid claim of fair use. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
This is such a low-resolution image I can't see what harm could possibly come of it. I've restored it to the page, because if it's not used, it will be deleted. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
And rightly so. I'm honestly astounded at that edit. What on Earth does it add? It's a non-free image of some living people, crying, at a funeral. I cannot believe you, of all people, just added that back. J Milburn (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Since there is a market for low res images of current events useing comercial images of such events is seriosuly dicely from our POV and general best avoided. One option would be to put together a map from open street maps highlighting where the various places events took place actualy are.©Geni 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a market you say? From who to who? MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, please, Geni, which markets are you talking about? Please give us an example. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well normally the likes of AP to well every online news source in existence. The image you want to use currently has only 6% fewer pixels than the largest image on the BBC's main page.Genisock2 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The difference in image quality is most certainly not 6%. Are you looking at the right images, the one that is to be used here is linked at the top of this section, and ironically, the one on the BBC site looks to be the original one trying to be used that I was looking for the source of in the above section here, because I frankly did not believe it was a video still, which I objected to on source, but would have also objected to on resolution had that been resolved. That image is not what I consider a low resolution image for the purposes of claiming NFC here. The one linked above is. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Zee lead image on the BBC front page is currently 54240(226*240) pixels in size. File:Michael Jackson funeral BBC video 8137700 frame 27s.jpg is 57960 (322*180) pixels in size so is actualy 6% larger than the BBC image.©Geni 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I think that page protection is inevitable give the edit warring that this (rather unnecessary) image is causing. Ironic considering that Jackson was a man who preached peace. magnius (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Jmilburn on his talk page, and I'll ask again here: could someone explain who might be harmed by our use of such a low-resolution image, given that high-resolution versions are available in every corner of the globe? I'd like someone to tell me who might be harmed, and how. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I just don't see what an image of bereaved relatives adds to the article. magnius (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe the argument runs as follows: by providing the image here, our readers are not forced to visit a commercial news site to see the same, and we have thus we have deprived those commercial sites of viewership (and potential revenue, i.e. clickthroughs, and so on) by lifting their images. –xenotalk 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an incredibly bad argument. Show me a single person in the world who would decide not to look at high-resolution images or the videos available on every news site, just because we had shown a very low-quality still showing one moment from the memorial. If anything, it would encourage people to look for more. And the same argument could be applied to our texts, so should we remove those too? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I would decide not to search Google for some pictures if I could get a load of stolen ones here. I check Wikipedia first, and will typically Google elsewhere if I want to see some pictures and Wikipedia hasn't shown me them. As such, in using images we do not have a right to, we are depriving these websites of people such as myself. J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • This particlar image is not hosted on the BBC site as an image, and in additon, I would imagine even if anyone was crazy enough to settle for a low res still hosted here as a replacement for a high res vid at the BBC, they are presuably also going to be wanting to go to the BBC site for some of that wordy stuff they write so gud, that Wikinews just doesn't. MickMacNee (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't write the wordy stuff so gud, because we have to spend our time dealing with this kind of stuff instead. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Jmilburn, if you respect our policies so much, please put the image back, and nominate it for deletion. By removing it, you're trying to bypass that process, because it'll definitely be deleted if not used. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Erm, no. Where in our policies does it say "leave images in violation of policy in articles for seven days before deleting them"? Our processes are here to help us enforce policy, not to bypass it. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
"Hey Judy, did you see that heartwarming display of the Jackson family comforting eachother at the MJ memorial?"
"No! Let me see if I can find it on Wikipedia... Oh yes, here it is! No need to go to the BBC's commercial website to see it now..."
Farfetched? –xenotalk
Yes. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
*boggle @ J Milburn* So then we can pilfer the image for now? If it won't impact BBC's viewership... –xenotalk 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Your scenario was farfetched, that's all you asked. Note my own scenario above. However, this really doesn't matter. This kind of discussion is pointless. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If there is ever a nuclear war, while everyone else on the planet rushes to find shelter, to stock up on food, or to have passionate sex one last time, we can feel safe in the knowledge that Wikipedians will still be in front of their computers, arguing about whether that image of the mushroom cloud infringes on someone's copyright. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
If there really is a nuclear war, there's going to be not one, but many mushroom clouds. I'm sure we can find a free image. –xenotalk 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It concerns me greatly that some editors are displaying a flexible attitude to copyright and fair use when adherence to copyright law is a live or die issue for a project such as wikipedia. Wikipedia as a project and community, represented by the Foundation, is not in a position to be fighting expensive legal battles due to lax adherence to US law and our established policies on copyright and fair use. The reason we have policy is to prevent editors without a solid knowledge of the law (and who aren't themselves liable) from having to make such decisions about the use of copyrighted imagery. Our fair use policy is not derived from consensus, it is doctrine as dictated by the Foundation in consultation with its lawyers. The last thing the project needs is editors or administrators reinterpreting those policies on a case by case basis. If people think the fair use policy is wrong then by all means study US copyright law and take it up with the informed people that laid those policies down. Meanwhile if WP policy says that fair use images can't be used where they might tread on the toes of a commercial operation then there is a good reason for that, and someone with more knowledge of the law, and more knowledge of what is at risk, made sure that point was in the policy. At that point if there is a risk of infringing someone else's copyright and the rationale looks in any way shaky, common sense would be to not host the media. Copyright policy exists to ensure the survival of this project. A shaky claim of fair use on corporation's copyrighted imagery may have implications well outside the confines of this one article. Mfield (Oi!) 06:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your insistence about the threat to Wikipedia does not match anything the Foundation Counsel has ever said about fair use. So, to actually quote the policy, "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". If your argument is simply that 'it does', and you can't find a policy that explicitly bars the use of current news sources period, and you ignore the fact the image meets the relevant provisions of the NFC, namely resolution, minimal and appropriate use, and proper attribution and identification, which are there to actually ensure that the goal of commercial protection is met, then you don't really have an argument do you? MickMacNee (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Burial

I watch both Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills) and Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale. Editors have been busy adding Jackson to the lists of internments in those cemeteries. It's my understanding that he has not been buried anywhere yet. I've protect the articles for the short term. If an internment does take place in one of those cemeteries could someone please leave a note at the appropriate talk page, with a source? I hate to protect the articles longer than necessary, since they are edited actively.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Internment is the act of locking up or confining someone, like an enemy alien during a war. Interment is the process of burying someone. Edison (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
No plans have been announced for the ultimate disposition of the remains. Is there a list of dead Notable Persons who have not been buried or cremated or placed in a tomb? We have Jeremy Bentham on the list of Mummies, which is close. Edison (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Another mode of legal final "disposition of remains" (the correct term, rather than the silly "final resting place") is anatomical donation. Which is what happens if you choose to go for dissection at a medical school, or be cryonically preserved. The last being an option Jackson was reported interested in, but apparently never made arrangements for. That said, his brain is no doubt still in a glass jar, fixing in formalin, somewhere in the LA County M.E.'s office, and nobody has speculated on what will happen to it, after the standard two-week brain necropsy, which will probably happen on July 13 or so. Perhaps they'll return it to the family, as happened (apparently) with JFK's brain. But somehow I imagine it will retained as a curio by somebody, in the manner of Einstein's brain, unless somebody asks. If the family wants it, they're going to have to sue for it. SBHarris 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If the family really wishes for him to be buried at the ranch, and the property owner (apparently a joint venture involving others) is willing, as has been reported, the permission can be obtained under existing laws, in some weeks, without more opposition than that would be expected if the Santa Barbara county supervisors held a public meeting for area residents. Of course, in this case, the public meeting would be a circus. Steveozone (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I note that reference link #8 (leading to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.RES.600 ) does not properly display in either Firefox or Internet Explorer. Would someone be willing to confirm this, and if so, advise on an alternate URL? Jmudge (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Mexico

Can you add that the service was broadcasted live in Mexico through Televisa and TV Azteca, the largest TV Stations in the country? Thanks 200.38.97.218 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to question whether that section needed to be so cluttered. Wouldn't it be enough to just say that it was broadcast live around the world, without having to list each and every station that carried it? magnius (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Listing each station which carried a broadcast seems to violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Edison (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada

It was also broadcast in French on

TVA, LCN, MusiMax, Musique Plus, RDI

and additionally in English on

CBC Newsworld

on top of the broadcasts on CTV networks

Also, the funeral procession from the cemetery to Staples Center was broadcast on the main CBC network.

70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Death article

Supported

  • Supported As demonstrated by the (short) length of this article, there is not enough information in this article for it to stand alone (especially after expunging the detailed list of media covering this). Note that this is one of very few figures whose death is covered in two articles (one on his/her death, and on his/her funeral). Even the death of Pope John Paul II, which still benefited from recentism, has just one article. Put things in perspective, please... -- tariqabjotu 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Supported I support this proposed merge. Please give this merge suggestion some extra time to allow the community to gain perspective and the appropriateness that this media splash over the memorial is not particularly notable as a subject separate to Jackson's death.--Writelabor (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Smerge (selectively merge) into the death article. It was a big news event, so recentism and Mourning sickness causes a big splash of interest. But not every word said and every emotion shown is of enduring historical interest, any more than in article about the deaths and funerals of Abraham Lincoln, Queen Victoria, or Franklin D. Roosevelt. This article is comparable to State funeral of John F. Kennedy. The U.S. shut down normal business from the assassination of Kennedy until the conclusion of the funeral, with TV networks on the air 24 hours a day (they signed off at night in those days) without commercials. Most world leaders came to the funeral, unlike the Jackson funeral which had some celebrities. The other world leaders listed above also had more historically significant funerals/memorials than Jackson, but our recentism makes Wikipedia look silly. A newspaper will have details that an encyclopedia need not include. In the case of the other deaths above, the encyclopedia coverage of the memorial ceremonies are a tiny percentage of the newspaper column inches and books coverage of the ceremonies. In the Jackson case, the encyclopedia article covers every trivial detail, every utterance, every song, every minute detail. Edison (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: per WP:SIZE itself. I would not hesitate for even a moment to say that A) Jackson's death may be among the biggest deaths of all time, and B) Jackson's funeral may be among the biggest funerals of all time. However, B is naturally among the immediate consequences of A, so B should fit comfortably with A in the same article--until, of course, the size of either article prescribes a WP:SPLIT. Right now, Death of Michael Jackson is 164 kb (27 kb of which are readable prose) and Funeral of Michael Jackson is 98 kb (10 kb readable prose). These would combine into an article of 262 kb, with a readable prose size of only 37 kb. According to WP:SIZE, however, it is only when an article exceeds 40 kb of readable prose (which, yes, the merged piece would be close to doing) that it "may eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" (emphasis added). Now, for comparison, I worked on a piece, Major depressive disorder, which has an overall size of 548 kb and a readable prose size of 56 kb. Major depressive disorder is substantially larger than what Death of Michael Jackson would become if it were to incorporate Funeral of Michael Jackson. Yet, the depression article still became Wikipedia's featured article for one of the days last month--so it (along with several other featured articles) gives us some precedent to justify a merge. In fact, even if MDD eventually were to go beyond 60 kb, it would remain within WP:SIZE's bounds for a single article, depending on editorial discretion. Only after 100 kb--nearly twice the size of MDD and almost thrice the size of a merged MJ death/funeral--does the necessity of a page split become "almost certain" (emphasis added). Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: but wait until the hysteria has died down so that this can be done in a level-headed, encyclopedic, fashion.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: per ukexpat. The article resembles a fansite in that there is an excess of trivial detail, which can be pruned down once the dust has settled. Merging should pose no problem for the size of the target article once the trivia is gone. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, when the issue simmers down after a few months. Surely by then "Death of Michael Jackson" will suffice to cover all this — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 01:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Dunno: Separate the fact from fiction and ok. But i've reviewed this myself (having been at the event) and MOST of it seems in order ('xcept for some grammer mistakes). I would honestly prefer it to stay as a separate article since, well, it was a BIG event, y'know. Bahahs 22:39, 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)
  • Merge. The combined page size will be 38 kB prose, leaving huge amounts of room for further expansion.YobMod 15:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

  • Opposed I oppose the merge. I always felt this should be it's own article. This was such a huge event on its own and notable in its own right. This article can stand alone and could be expanded later. This was considered the biggest death ever.--Sugarcubez (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I also want to say to those who support, size is nothing there are smaller articles, plus this will be expanded.--Sugarcubez (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed I agree with you, biggest memorial ceremony in the history.Elmao (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed this 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) 09:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed Magnius is right, it would become gigantic. Leave it this way, as it is a very specific subject to the life and death of Michael Jackson. Also: edited the manner of voting. Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 09:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed It is a big article now and merging it would make the proposed article too long StephenBHedges (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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) 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose No it should be kept with the amount of information already there (a split candidate) but also due to the sheer amont of people who watched the event. - Epson291 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too soon to think about merging, as the sources we need are just beginning to write detailed, thoughtful articles that we need to create a good article. We should wait a couple of weeks at the very least, and see how this one turns out. This is very much a notable event in its own right if CNN's view that one billion people watched it is anything close to accurate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The merged article would be huge. Blackjays1 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The funeral article has too much information to be merged with the death, and would be a humongous article, and would end up being divided again. 166.166.24.77 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Enough third party coverage to assert notability as a stand alone article, before hand I had my doubt, but that has changed. — Please comment R2 13:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Note that WP:SIZE alone would not yet justify a merge (as explained above). Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - perhaps things were different when this was proposed but both articles are sufficiently large in size that merging doesn't make sense. The memorial service has been well covered by multiple news sources and that will likely continue for days if not weeks to come. Both articles are sufficiently notable.--RadioFan (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - First the Michael Jackson article was too big, even before he died. Now the Death of Michael Jackson article is getting too big. Like everything else about this man, these articles are growing beyond all reason.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposed I oppose the merge. Ths was a huge event, an was watched by hundreads of millions of people. --MoHasanie  Talk  16:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Notable enough for it's own article. Pyrrhus16 17:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This deserves an special article and not just a paragraph. It was viewed by millions worldwide and the article can detail all the moments in the event. --Aguilac (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a subject that can hold its own article. Plus, It's too much for one article. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Oppose This is one of the most biggest memorial services ever. It does not need to be merged with another article because this article is too big and it would make the death article too long --70.109.24.168 (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Very notable in its own right. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Us Weekly says there was an estimated 31.1 million people watched this from around the world[2], so I think it's a historical event and deserves it's own page.Shark96z (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Explicitly significant for a stand-alone article and the Death is already 58 KB long. Both articles are still in progress as more info becomes available. Brandt 08:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This memorial service attracted more than 100 millions online and on TV. This article should stay because the death article would be too long and this memorial service is very notable itself.--Mpurplegirl (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose On the grounds of the length of the two articles already, which will both inevitably be added to in some way. Sky83 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Jackson Memorial (notable) was a 3-hour event, with sufficient details to become a large article, by itself. In general, the MJ articles should be split, not merged: article "Michael Jackson" is still averaging 600,000 page-views per day (after the initial 5.9 million pageviews). Don't make Wikipedia readers clog wiki-servers with gigantic articles; keep each article simpler and smaller. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  • Comment – Agreed. The problem here is that the question is being asked way too soon. In a week or three, it will be clear whether the material in both articles requires separate treatment, or whether a fitting and appropriate article might be made by merging that which is truly memorable and important (the "Death of" article will be greatly refined after questions are answered and speculation is ended). Steveozone (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nokia Center

The Nokia Center / Nokia Theater should be mentioned in the article, since a large portion of the tickets were for that location, and not Staples Center. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cremation

"The Daily Telegraph writes that the family would like to have Jackson's casket entombed in concrete because of fears it may be interfered with, or cremated and later moved to the Neverland Ranch, next to the train station..." Surely the intent is to say that Jackson's remains may be cremated, not the casket? 68.57.50.6 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The source said nothing about cremation. I've removed it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Glove on right hand????

It is incorrectly stated that MJ's body was buried with a glove on his right hand.. The cited source states that the paulbearers were wearing gloves on their right hands not MJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.50.88 (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Paulbearers" might be those who carry the casket of a dead Beatle, but in this case they were "pallbearers." Edison (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It is rumoured, but still not confirmed. However, even if is a rumor, should be in the article while is confirmed --Aguilac (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
See verifiability which says "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Edison (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It's confirmed. By TMZ [3] I'll put it now in the section of "Burial"--Aguilac (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it confirmed. That's a fascinating reference there. A very questionable source (glove seller with an advertising agenda) quoted by another somewhat questionable media source (TMZ debated extensively in connection with this story) as to what LaToya Jackson (reliable source?) said she wanted to see happen (and not necessarily what did happen). Steveozone (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne (Australia) public broadcast

The live public broadcast in Melbourne (Australia) was not on a "giant screen being erected" (which implies a temporary screen), but on a permanent screen known as 'Big Screen' at Federation Square. Formalist (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Change it then. Portillo (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Record!

According to other data, the event was over 2500 million viewers, making it in the most-watched television program in the history of mankind worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.167.207 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Source? Theleftorium 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Promoters were hyping the event by citing made up viewer figures even before the event aired, per the Washington Post: [4]. It did not have the largest TV audience.Edison (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ABC Broadcast 07/07

Am I not seeing it or was there no mention in any of the articles about ABC's 2-hour broadcast on 07/07?

I wanted to see Better Off Ted!!!!

Is there no end???

Seriously, if it was deemed worthy of a two-hour broadcast, it's noteworthy enough for a one-sentence mention.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

people are "innocent until proven guilty"

Was this meant to be a reaction to the comments made by Peter King? — Please comment R2 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


This "quote" was incorrect. She stated "innocent until proven otherwise." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.139.35.250 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


The statement was a reaction to all of the controversy that continued to pursue michael jackson, despite his being cleared of all charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.68.79 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

California Law Change??

The law in California does not need to be changed for Michael Jackson to be buried at Neverland Ranch. The family needs to only get an exemption from the state.

Case in Point: Ronald Reagan, as well as Richard, & Pat Nixon, are not buried in cemeteries, they buried at their respective libraries, neither of which are located on federally controlled land.--Subman758 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The supposed "exemption" from the law is not even that, really, the law just requires "permission" from the state funeral regulatory authority, which will rely largely on approved use of the subject property by the county. (The permission from the county would require approval of the board of supervisors, subject to public hearing that would likely be a circus): [[5]] Steveozone (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Live broadcast section

This section seems to be getting rather cluttered with seemingly unimportant information regarding which stations carried the live broadcast and could in in violation of WP:NOTADIRECTORY (as far as my limited understanding of it makes out). I would suggest that it needs to be rewritten in such a way that makes clear that the broadcast was carried worldwide, without being a cumbersome and hard to read mass of station ID's. magnius (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The list seems fine to me. The purpose (as I see it) of WP:NOT#DIR is to prevent Wikipedia from being used like a TV Guide and has the added benefit of preventing schedules from being put in radio station and similar articles which are quickly out of date on infrequently maintained articles. This use here seems fine. The list of broadcasters isn't too large.--RadioFan (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is being chopped up. QuackGuru (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I restored the chopped section. QuackGuru (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

credits for who sang "heal the world" at the service

nobody is saying WHO the beatiful female artist that performed "heal the world" at the jackson memorial is! She gave a stellar performance, and I want to know her name!I love that song more than ever now! I love the way she did it!who is she? -the article currently says it was sung by "hundreds of people" -yah maybe in the background vocals, but there was an amazing lead singer, and nobody seems to know her name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.93.252 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

She was Judith Hill. :) [6] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:48, 9 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) 03:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Burial Law

I am not a lawyer, and I have no expertise in burial law. The "Burial" section is based in large part on an article by a British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph and I am very uncertain of its accuracy. I did go look at the applicable statutes, but someone with more knowledge of California health and business codes should do some more work on this section. It looks like you cannot bury non-cremated remains except at an established cemetery, while you can scatter or bury cremated remains almost anywhere, with a few restrictions. It is unclear to me how difficult it would be for Michael Jackson's family to set up their own cemetery at Neverland or some other location. It is even less clear to me why the State Assembly would have to change any laws to allow a cemetery to be set up there. We will know more about all this once we actually find out how his body was laid to rest. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not an expert in burial law, but experienced in California land use, and familiar with the relevant law, and dying to find some reliable sources so no one can claim I'm bragging, or doing OR. Here's the deal: if the family really wishes for him to be buried at the ranch, and the property owner (apparently a joint venture involving others) is willing, as has been reported, the permission can be obtained under existing laws, in some weeks, without more opposition than that would be expected if the Santa Barbara county supervisors held a public meeting for area residents. [[7] (Of course, in this case, the public meeting would be a circus; likely opposed by residents, and requiring further litigation). Steveozone (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Most of the Long List of Broadcasters

I was the one who took out a long list of broadcast outlets. It seemed way too long and confusing (and was, ironically, undoubtedly highly incomplete.) I deleted a lot of work by fellow Wikipedians. It might be a good idea to create a separate article about the broadcast of the memorial service: the global broadcast (which was apparently the most viewed TV show in history aside from President Obama's nomination, the outbreak of the Second Gulf War, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks) was a very noteable event in and of itself.

Speaking just as a typical American viewer, my recollection is the show was on every channel in the USA which regularly shows live programming with the exception of PBS (and it may well have turned up on some PBS outlets), CSPAN and the sports channels such as ESPN. None of the channels which showed the memorial service snuck any ads into the package, although Fox News did keep its yellow crawl going. There may be a definitive list available somewhere of all the channels which ran the service. I personally certainly did not bother to flip through every channel on my cable package! Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Endorse removal of totally unencyclopedic list of broadcasters that aired this. If the key points are that many media outlets in the US and around the world broadcast this event, and that it was widely viewed over broadcast, cable, and Internet media, there are many better ways to convey that. Bongomatic 09:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the list. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this

http://www.ojotele.com/2009/07/08-el-funeral-de-michael-jackson-fue-visto-por-mas-de-2000-millones-de-espectadores-en-todo-el-mundo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.167.207 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The English translation is here, but not sure what the point is exactly. — Satori Son 12:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Could the box be made a little narrower, please? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

How did it do TV wise? I dunno but I've heard it beat Obama's inauguration and last year's opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.176.61 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the article. magnius (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

500 Million Hits!!

Ok Ive seen on many reliable sources that staples center web page recieved half a billion hits. i think thats notable enough to be in this article. It was widely announced. Although 1.2 million peopled registered. It should be noted that "HITS" and "registrations" are two different things. So I think I should be mentioned. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.32.249 (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I AGREE I heard the same thing all over the news and seen it on many webpages. It should be mentioned ITalkTheTruth (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Guest list

Is it really worth noting who didn't attend? My main concern is the last three names...especially Macaulay Culkin. magnius (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear; not needed, and I suspect the list of confirmed or purported "friends" who did not attend, and the inumerable and varying reasons why, could quickly rival the list of broadcasters who covered the service. To what end? Steveozone (talk) 06:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lede

At the risk of coming off as a cheerleader (I'm not, and I actually think this article should/will be merged shortly), IMHO those who believe that this article should exist independent and separate from the "Death of Michael Jackson" and "Michael Jackson" articles should probably start to carefully edit the lead paragraph. It is becoming a dumping ground for unsourced trivia, and details best discussed elsewhere, without discussing independent notability of the event. Why is the service itself notable, apart from his death, and his life? (i.e., the inevitable memorial, following the inevitable (but perhaps independently notable) death, of a clearly notable and spectacularly famous individual). I understand why a bunch of articles cropped up as we followed the shocking report of his death, but now that things are slowing down, let's start thinking again about what we're doing here, shall we?Steveozone (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

infobox image

is there an image from inside the building while the memorial service was held? There is currently only a picture from a building... --84.44.152.40 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of copyright violation and non-free content issues with that. Until the situation surrounding image use can be resolved, we cannot use images from the ceremony. magnius (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1

2,500 million isn't really a number

I changed it to 2,500,000,000

if I should change it back lemme know.

MarthsBullet (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting use of a non-free image

Pursuant to the original discussion here, where the justification for not using an image of the Jackson family on the stage at the end of the service was supposedly the commercial value to news organisations, I propose to re-upload the image. 'Commercial value' was a flimsy argument at best at the time (the discussion went quiet upon request for any relevant policy barring news site images that otherwise detailed how it was believed all other conditions of the NFCC had been met). Anyway, even accepting that argument was valid then, there can now surely be nobody who genuinely believes that there is still a commercial value to a low resolution still from this video for use in the article. As I still have the image on my PC and all the relevant upload data, if the objections registered here are still on grounds of commercial value, I intend to reupload it, because the commercial value to news organisations has passed, and as far as I'm concerned, the use of the image is more than justifiable under the NFCC, and if there was ever going to be a free alternative, it would have emerged by now. I suggest if people want to debate the use of the image on the grounds of significance (NFCC#8), the only way that can be done is through a 7 day IFD debate, with the image and caption in place. This is the way all section 8 disputes are handled. MickMacNee (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's the one of his family crying at the service, I do not see what it adds to the article and why there is any need to re-add it at all. magnius (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd go further: a picture of a basketball arena is just bizarre, but is the least of problems with an article that reads like a roughly-condensed transcript of a memorial service for one of countless deceased notables on WP. The article needs much more condensing before discussion of additional bells and whistles. Steveozone (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comparative Viewership Ratings for Memorial Services?

This paragraph, reading as follows at the moment:

"The funeral was broadcast live around the world, from the U.S. to Slovakia to India, with an estimated one billion viewers, an amount that comes close that of the funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, which was viewed by 3.7 billion viewers and the funeral of Pope John Paul II watched by 2 billion viewers. "

should IMHO really be edited to remove the portion after "estimated one billion viewers" in view of the lack of any references for any of the viewership numbers stated (including the "one billion" by the way); and on grounds that the comparisons creeping in are unseemly (i.e. "which decedent left behind the best public relations team to drive higher TV ratings to capitalize on the sorrowful event?"); irrelevant and unencyclopedic; and the sort of thing that WP:SYN prevents. As it is evident that this paragraph has had lots of controversy over the past few weeks, I'm putting out these points for discussion before taking bold action. Steveozone (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The 3.7 billion viewers for Diana's funeral is implausible. The world's population was less than 6 billion at the time, and that includes hundreds of millions who had no TV and hundreds of millions of others who had a TV but didn't watch the funeral. If we take that 3.7 billion number seriously, almost 2/3 of all the humans on the planet tuned in. The 2 billion for John Paul II is a little less implausible. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but "plausible" only goes so far. The more direct problem is the complete lack of any reliable sources for the various viewership assertions. The source for "one billion" viewers of MJ's memorial is from a blog entry by reporter(s) with a Vancouver newspaper, posting real time reports from the Staples Center prior to the memorial, and discussing the viewership that some other completely unidentified reports had purportedly indicated was anticipated. Steveozone (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion of viewership comparisons has changed somewhat since my initial post to this section, but it still contains unsourced info regarding viewership for Princess Diana's memorial; info which is (1) unsourced, and (2) IMHO irrelevant, no? Steveozone (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the one-billion from the lede and the 2.5 billion from later.

According to official news sources from around the world, the Michael Jackson memorial exceeded 2,500 million viewers, making the event the most watched live television broadcast of the history of humanity worldwide, surpassing the level of hearing in the television broadcast of the Apollo 11 space mission in July 1969, until then considered the live television broadcast with higher worldwide audience.[2][3]
  1. ^ http://tv3.ie/blogs.php?pagename=news&rowsPerPage=10&maxPageBlogs=6&page=1&view_blog_entry=486&locID=1.2
  2. ^ "El funeral de Michael Jackson fue visto por más de 2.000 millones de espectadores en todo el mundo". ojotele.com. Retrieved November 7, 2009.
  3. ^ "2,500 millones de personas verán funeral de Jackson por TV". terra.com.pe. Retrieved November 7, 2009.

For any major event you can google up some hack who claims a billion people watched it. Global television audience estimates are made up by event organisers based on little or no hard evidence and parroted by news organisations based on little or no skepticism. The only Wikipedia article I can find that discusses this is List of most-watched television broadcasts#World. See discussion here, which links to more discussion. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. jnestorius(talk) 01:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Well, same can most certainly be said for the hard pushed 1 billion figure constantly quoted for 'Aloha from Hawaii' ...Especaially with the worldwide population even lower, again way back then.

Either way, worldwide, Michael Jackson would have had a huge viewing audience. Furthermore, Diana's funeral service was held on a Saturday - Many people don't work on a Saturday. Michael Jackson's was held on a Tuesday, right smack in the middle of a working week. That is why, if you were to add all the record-breaking figures who watched online, simply because they could not watch it at home, (Including the many large out-door screens which were set up in various venues in various countries around the world) etc. The viewing figures shoot way over what is quoted for just for TV viewings, alone.

13Bells86.42.104.181 (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Burial section?

The burial section needs work and may be in the wrong place. This seems like something which should be fully covered in the Death of Michael Jackson page although the topic does need to be summarized here. We may want to wait till more is known about the burial. I saw here (and elsewhere on the wiki) references to the "Jackson Family" as the group who decides what to do with the things Michael Jackson left behind. including his earthly remains. Actually, his siblings really have nothing to say about the burial or anything else to do with his legacy, and his parents have a say only because his mother is the guardian of his children. It is his children (who are minors who hopefully have trusts set up for them) and his estate who are the stakeholders who will decide what to do with his legacy. And in any case, he cannot be buried at Neverland unless and until the owners of the ranch and the local land use authorities agree to let a cemetery be established there. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that any discussion of the supposed legal requirements for cremated remains, and whether the family likes concrete, should be eliminated, and a "see also" added to the death of michael jackson article. Burial was not a part of this particular memorial service, and should not require more than a sentence or so saying something like "The disposition of Jackson's remains was not announced, and remained undisclosed, by the end of the memorial service." Steveozone (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If he is to be buried at Neverland, first and foremost the owners of Neverland have to agree. Jackson's estate does own a share of the property but if the controlling partners choose not to attempt to build a cemetery on site, then it wouldn't matter what anyone else thinks: not Jermaine Jackson, not the County of Santa Barbara, not the State Assembly— no one. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Part of the problem that has since been eliminated from other articles came from very speculative gossip articles that appeared to state that MJ's partner in Neverland was active in efforts following MJ's death to make way for a burial at Neverland. There's a huge case of "Find some news article somewhere, stick it in as many articles as you can find" going on with Jackson-related articles. Instead, more to the point, none of this belongs here. Why do we talk about "Burial" here, when burial was clearly not part of the "Michael Jackson Memorial Service?" Steveozone (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

Just saying that there is a Wikipedia rule stating Wikipedia is NOT a memorial site. Why is this page up? This contradicts the rules of wikipedia. No memorial, no exceptions - D33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by D33deed33guy (talk • contribs) 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC) kjijkmuihmuhkmubnghftdbfvytf tfgvbtrdtgvtfv rtf tftf rtf ftr rf rf rtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.168.238 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic section

I deleted the section under "Cost" that carried the title "Finally, the dabate is over on memorial service costs:". It was not written according to Wikipedia's style rules and conventions, or indeed in language appropriate for encyclopedias in general. In fact it seemed as if it was copied from an online newspaper or blog. The verb tenses used throughout were wrong and some opinions were expressed that were not citations. Considering the section's appaling quality and non-vital role within the article, I decided to scrap it entirely. Should someone feel the need to restore its contents in a more fitting tone and style, by all means go ahead. --Rubseb (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I concur that such trivial information is not at all encyclopedic or wikipedia worthy. --Johnny Red 14:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyRed2011 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site

I believe that this entire page should at the very least be edited or deleted as I've never read an encyclopedia entailing so many details to somebodies memorial service. It should only contain a source citatation giving the reader a link to such information I believe came from social networks. Although MJ was fairly notable in many people's view I believe an entire article based on a memorial service is only eventful news and not at all biographical in nature to reflect popular standards set out by academic scholars. You dont see an article on Thomas Hardy's memorial service attended by many notable pall bearers on wikipedia but trying not to be in anyway opinionated on this article I refer you to wikipedia's rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM Please do not delete this edit as the above link explains (albeit my interpretation) the fact that such a topic be allowed to be discussed (unless we low level moderaters have no say) or if I have misinterpreted I'll use verbatim: This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed. For advice about how to write biographical articles, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Therefore if there has been a consensus reached on this recent article then go ahead and delete me otherwise do not silence me yet. If I could say that this article could perhaps do with a little less social media by crediting those obvious source's websites and leaving wikipedia unblemished as a institute for authorative encyclopedic articles. A list of well known memorial sites is more than sufficient. Johnny Red 13:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyRed2011 (talk • contribs) --Johnny Red 13:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC) --Johnny Red 13:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


"...fairly notable..." - You kidding? The man was a GLOBAL entertaining icon on an unprecedented scale. It is not too surprising that somebody, somewhere, sooner or later, would create a page like this. Even if, after all is said and done, it does not have to be here, just not that surprised it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.104.181 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


///////////////////////////

Why has the editor here not included the fact that Ronald Regan's memorial was first shown during the day, with 20+ million views and when it was shown again during the evening, it then climbed to approx. 35 million views - which would be quite obvious, considering more people were home from work, etc. at this time of the day! On the other hand, Michael Jackson's memorial was held during the day time, when many are at work - This could also apply to Lady Diana's funeral, which was held on a Saturday, when many people do not work.

"Former President Ronald Reagan's mid-day funeral drew 20.8 million people on June 11, 2004. A prime-time program on Reagan's burial that same evening drew an estimated 35.07 million viewers."


In reality, President Ronald Reagan's mid-day funeral drew 20.8 million, while being shown live, and that is the true comparison, for those who want to make them. In reality, the figure used here for a recorded viewing, is not truthfully "Comparable" (As it states in article) at all. You should at least include the actual amount for the live coverage.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/michael-jackson-memorial-2nd-most-watched-funeral-princess-di-nielsen-ratings-article-1.428177#ixzz334X21azs

I just don't understand why/ how the evening viewership figure for a Recorded showing of Ronald Regan's memorial is the only one used / or the only one mentioned to compare to Michael Jackson's. Seems very one-sided ...I mean, the streaming figures are not even taken into account for Jackson, let alone on a global scale. Also, it seems to concentrate on the USA, only, when making comparisons to Regan and Jackson, for example.

Very lopsided and ambiguous way of putting out information! Obviously not a true /complete picture / figure count!

Guest list

Elizabeth Taylor did attend. [8] Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Jackson memorial service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Jackson memorial service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Jackson_memorial_service/Archive_1&oldid=1089877575"