Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

MOS:BOLD

Could someone show mercy and unbold the descriptive article title in the lead, per MOS:BOLD (please see also WP:BOLDITIS). 84.44.143.160 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)  Done--Unitanode 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! 84.44.143.160 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Unfortunately, someone unfamiliar with the MoS undid the edit. I've left them a message, but the user appears to be offline. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

When will Conrad Murray get his own wikipedia entry?

Will wikipedia allow the creation of an entry specifically for / about Dr. Conrad Murray ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.237 (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Zazaban (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Portillo (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Murray doesn't seem notable enough to warrant his own article. Lately his name's been popping up more and more, but only in relation to the death of Michael Jackson, so I'd say the article addressing that death is the best place to shed light on the physician – at least until further developments. Digitelle (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's inevitable that he'll have his own article. We'll just need to keep a very close eye on it BLP-wise. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree on this one. Was Jackson administered a death-inducing drug? By whom? And surely a physician should know that you cannot provide CPR effectively on a bed? WWGB (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Murray had a $150k / month contract to be Jackson's cardiologist. If they had any brains, they would have had a clause in his contract that he only gets paid if Jackson stays alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.237 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

business side of MJ

From Bloomberg. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful, Gwen, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews templates

Uncle G, having multiple Wikinews templates looks very ugly. Could you choose one spot instead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I did. You've moved that spot from its original position, at the heads of the level-two sections where they originally were, twice. I've had to revert your bold rearrangements, which moved the links to entirely the wrong places, twice now. Please stop breaking the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You posted Wikinews templates in multiple sections, and they look awful. Can you please restore it to being in just one spot, as it was when the article started? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Wrong. In this revision of the article, there were exactly two templates, with links appropriate to the sections that they were in. You have broken this arrangement twice, now. You've moved a whole load of links from the "reactions" section, where they belong, into the "record sales" section, where they clearly do not. You've even mangled the markup. You changed the original layout and broke things. I'm trying to repair the damage that you've caused, bringing the article back to how it was before you broke things, whilst preserving your intent with the images.I repeat, please stop breaking the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • This was your edit, which resulted in six Wikinews templates, practically one in every section. I'm not breaking the article. I'm trying to write it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That was my first attempt to fix your breaking of the article, constructively reverting your damage by putting the links back against the text that they belonged whilst preserving your apparent intent with the image placements. I was not the only editor to fix your breakage. Another editor had to clean up some of your mess here. Make no mistake: You have broken the article. The markup for one Wikinews link is now wrong, where it was previously correct. The links are in a completely inappropriate section, whereas before they were each in the section relevant for the link. And no, edits like this and this are not writing. You've been removing verifiable information and breaking the article, not writing at all. You removed the information that it is not known whether Jackson has a will, and you removed the information about Internet traffic levels being unchanged, and the analyses of the same with respect to the Twitter reports of Jackson's death. You even made the article less verifiable, by removing a citation that supported content, the Keating citation, and replacing it with completely different citation, which does not in fact support the content that it is now against. This is not writing. This is damage. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Please stop the insults. I am writing it and copy editing it to avoid repetition, and removing unnecessary citations. I removed your six Wikinews templates because they looked bad and aren't needed. We also shouldn't be promoting Wikinews to that extent -- one template, fine, but there's no need for more than one. That's all I'm going to say because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
          • These are descriptions of your actions, not insults. And you are well advised to pay them good heed. You are causing damage, removing information, breaking markup, and causing citations to be incorrect. You have made the article worse with those edits, not better. Readers are given less information, the article is less verifiable, and markup is a mess. And all in the name of "style" and "tidiness". Stop breaking the article, and stop owning it in the face of everyone else. You're now edit-warring with other editors over the use of boldface. Once again: This is not writing. It's style-nitpicking, and it is actually damaging the article proper along the way. Now, are you going to fix your own damage, putting back the citations that you erased and the verifiable information and sourced analyses that you removed when you were "tidying"? Uncle G (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• You always do this. Please don't. I'm only removing unnecessary wordiness and repetitive citations. There is no need for every word to be referenced. That's what I've been fixing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Does anyone have a view on using this article from the Daily Mail as a source? I know people have objected to it in the past because it's a tabloid, but I find it tends to be accurate. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it's already being used so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

MIspellings

The word "memorabilia" in the article needs correction on the "Personal Advisers" entry. Cobolsaurus (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Cobolsaurus

I think it's fixed now, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bold

There seems to be confusion about the first sentence. We always bold the titles. Some editors have pointed to articles where it doesn't happen e.g. death of Diana, but that is because the title isn't used in the first sentence. It is better to use it, but not necessary. When it is used, we bold it, and the practice is to do it without a wikilink. See WP:LEAD#Format of the first sentence. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not obliged to have the title in the first sentence. We could simply say, "Michael Jackson died on" etc. See here. This may be better than "the death of MJ occurred," which is kind of odd English. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the further link. I note the statement therein that "If the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface", which could apply in this case. Anyway, I like the latest approach much better. WWGB (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I do too. I only wrote it the previous way because that's what usually done, but we're not obliged to stick to it where it makes the writing sound awkward. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember having read talk page exchanges surrounding the issue of boldface links (such as the current formatting). I'd like to be a stickler dick about it, but cannot find it anywhere in the MoS. found it. Regardless, I still believe the current version is the sanest compromise. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone has changed it, unfortunately. I'm not going to change it back myself, but if someone else wants to, I won't object. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been changed back again for now. This may continue, because many don't know that (imho sensible) point of the MoS, yet. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommending upgrade to "C" class

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

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

Doctor left?

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

Flashmob

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

Effect on the internet

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

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

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

Duration of drive to UCLA Medical

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

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

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

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

Is this article necesary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture

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

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

Cash issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple articles from the satiral publication The Onion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Records sold out

An editor persists in adding that MJ records sold out in the UAE as if that is something unique. It happened elsewhere around the world, as evidenced by:

• United States
• New Zealand
• Australia

WWGB (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it. We can't list every country that sold out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

Is Jesse Jackson related to MJ? I presume not, but shouldn't this be stated? Also the second reference to him as just "Jackson" is confusing given the number of people called Jackson in the article. Could he be described as "Rev Jackson" on the second occurrence? Rachel Pearce (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverend Jackson is not biologically related to Michael Jackson. The title "Jackson" when used in this article should refer to the article's subject (i.e. Michael) all other references to this name, should have some way of addressing the possible confusion. When speaking of Reverand Jesse Jackson, we can use his full title, or the abbreviated form, Rev. Jackson. And even include, "of no relation" the first time he is mentioned. I'll make a few of these corrections, to aid from the possible confusion. Wolfpeaceful (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Header Template

The article is about a person who died right? Not a current event, I've changed the template ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it IS a current event. The template about the recent death should go on the Michael Jackson page. Looneyman (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Better picture of Hollywood star

here. Someone please upload to Commons. miranda 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done miranda 23:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Business manager

I removed the edit about Leonard Muhammad because it was very unclear. I'm going to write it up so that it reflects what the RS says. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A will, intestate, Joe Jackson, John Branca

An editor has removed mention of the competing positions of Joe Jackson's claim of intestate status for Jackson's estate, and the position that there is a will in the safe of Century City attorney, John Branca. This is substantative, as the competing positions determine the future of Jackson's estate. It is inconsistent for the present article to have mention of probate and Jackson's estate and to strip the article of mention of a possible will in an attorney's safe. Here are the references for the claim that a will exists: Dogru144 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal advisers

I really question the appropriateness of this section. It is getting waaaay off the track of MJ's death, and delving into past business affairs. It belongs in the main MJ article, if anywhere. WWGB (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The newspapers are writing about it as though it may be relevant. People are saying he was surrounded by poor advice in the last years of his life. It's a recurring theme throughout the news coverage of his death. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-29/News and notes has graphic about traffic spike and news links which may be useful here. -- Banjeboi 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Benjiboi, that's very helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing

- - Guys, just a note about the writing (not that anyone's going to pay attention, but here it is anyway). Five things mainly:

- -

• 1) There is no need to put everything in quotes. X said that she is "devastated," while Y said she, "couldn't stop crying," and Z said she "couldn't believe it." Totally unnecessary and hard to read.

- -

• 2) There is no need to quote every single celebrity who has said something meaningless, because that will shortly be half the planet.

- -

• 3) There is no need to state the obvious e.g. if X asked for a moment of silence in Congress, there's no need to write, "X spoke about Jackson and asked for a moment of silence." Of course they spoke about him first. They wouldn't jump up and simply announce a moment of silence.

- -

• 4) There is no need for "allegedly," or "reportedly" all the time, when it doesn't matter. If Taylor herself said she was packing her bags when she heard, that's what she was doing, so far as anyone will ever know, and who cares anyway. If Madonna said she wanted to dance with him in London, that's what she wanted.

- -

• 5) No need for citations for every single point, unless it's something likely to be challenged, or a (necessary) quotation. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

I'm sorry, but this article reads like a gossip column instead of a work of encyclopedic importance. There is no need to talk about every bit of juicy detail. The thoughts of a nanny and her allegations are written as a tabloid column -- and that's just one example. This article should be much shorter and stick to the facts that have become of permanent importance to the subject matter. Wikipedia may be instantaneously updatable, but it is not your source of the latest news (and certainly not a place to aggregate the latest speculation). It should be a record of the facts that are lasting and that err on the side of academic. If you want entertainment news and gossip, look to the many other sources for that. Am I the only person who feels this way?69.229.111.161 (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

No. But, this sort of thing is what happens every time someone notable dies (in proportion to notability). Steveozone (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

business side of MJ

- - From Bloomberg. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

That's very helpful, Gwen, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Wikinews templates

- - Uncle G, having multiple Wikinews templates looks very ugly. Could you choose one spot instead? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• I did. You've moved that spot from its original position, at the heads of the level-two sections where they originally were, twice. I've had to revert your bold rearrangements, which moved the links to entirely the wrong places, twice now. Please stop breaking the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• • You posted Wikinews templates in multiple sections, and they look awful. Can you please restore it to being in just one spot, as it was when the article started? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• • • Wrong. In this revision of the article, there were exactly two templates, with links appropriate to the sections that they were in. You have broken this arrangement twice, now. You've moved a whole load of links from the "reactions" section, where they belong, into the "record sales" section, where they clearly do not. You've even mangled the markup. You changed the original layout and broke things. I'm trying to repair the damage that you've caused, bringing the article back to how it was before you broke things, whilst preserving your intent with the images.I repeat, please stop breaking the article. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• • • • This was your edit, which resulted in six Wikinews templates, practically one in every section. I'm not breaking the article. I'm trying to write it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• • • • • That was my first attempt to fix your breaking of the article, constructively reverting your damage by putting the links back against the text that they belonged whilst preserving your apparent intent with the image placements. I was not the only editor to fix your breakage. Another editor had to clean up some of your mess here. Make no mistake: You have broken the article. The markup for one Wikinews link is now wrong, where it was previously correct. The links are in a completely inappropriate section, whereas before they were each in the section relevant for the link. And no, edits like this and this are not writing. You've been removing verifiable information and breaking the article, not writing at all. You removed the information that it is not known whether Jackson has a will, and you removed the information about Internet traffic levels being unchanged, and the analyses of the same with respect to the Twitter reports of Jackson's death. You even made the article less verifiable, by removing a citation that supported content, the Keating citation, and replacing it with completely different citation, which does not in fact support the content that it is now against. This is not writing. This is damage. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• • • • • Please stop the insults. I am writing it and copy editing it to avoid repetition, and removing unnecessary citations. I removed your six Wikinews templates because they looked bad and aren't needed. We also shouldn't be promoting Wikinews to that extent -- one template, fine, but there's no need for more than one. That's all I'm going to say because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

• • • • • • These are descriptions of your actions, not insults. And you are well advised to pay them good heed. You are causing damage, removing information, breaking markup, and causing citations to be incorrect. You have made the article worse with those edits, not better. Readers are given less information, the article is less verifiable, and markup is a mess. And all in the name of "style" and "tidiness". Stop breaking the article, and stop owning it in the face of everyone else. You're now edit-warring with other editors over the use of boldface. Once again: This is not writing. It's style-nitpicking, and it is actually damaging the article proper along the way. Now, are you going to fix your own damage, putting back the citations that you erased and the verifiable information and sourced analyses that you removed when you were "tidying"? Uncle G (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

• You always do this. Please don't. I'm only removing unnecessary wordiness and repetitive citations. There is no need for every word to be referenced. That's what I've been fixing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Daily Mail

- - Does anyone have a view on using this article from the Daily Mail as a source? I know people have objected to it in the past because it's a tabloid, but I find it tends to be accurate. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

I see it's already being used so it's a moot point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

MIspellings

- - The word "memorabilia" in the article needs correction on the "Personal Advisers" entry. Cobolsaurus (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Cobolsaurus

- -

I think it's fixed now, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Bold

- - There seems to be confusion about the first sentence. We always bold the titles. Some editors have pointed to articles where it doesn't happen e.g. death of Diana, but that is because the title isn't used in the first sentence. It is better to use it, but not necessary. When it is used, we bold it, and the practice is to do it without a wikilink. See WP:LEAD#Format of the first sentence. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

-

We're not obliged to have the title in the first sentence. We could simply say, "Michael Jackson died on" etc. See here. This may be better than "the death of MJ occurred," which is kind of odd English. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Thanks for the further link. I note the statement therein that "If the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface", which could apply in this case. Anyway, I like the latest approach much better. WWGB (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

I do too. I only wrote it the previous way because that's what usually done, but we're not obliged to stick to it where it makes the writing sound awkward. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Exactly. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- - I remember having read talk page exchanges surrounding the issue of boldface links (such as the current formatting). I'd like to be a stickler dick about it, but cannot find it anywhere in the MoS. found it. Regardless, I still believe the current version is the sanest compromise. 84.44.250.91 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

- -

Someone has changed it, unfortunately. I'm not going to change it back myself, but if someone else wants to, I won't object. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-

It has been changed back again for now. This may continue, because many don't know that (imho sensible) point of the MoS, yet. 78.34.202.69 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

- -