Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Listing of memorial gatherings

Article says:

"Fans around the world (such as in Australia, Odessa, Ukraine[1] and Brussels, Belgium[2]) held their own memorial gatherings."

It seems to me that there are fans in pretty much every country, memorial gatherings in sundry locations, and no need to list individual locations unless they're especially notable for some reason. Comments? -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, there's nothing particularly unusual about these gatherings. Rodhullandemu 21:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I edited this article on September 11, 2009 and pared down a paragraph to a single sentence. One of the tributes mentioned turned out, when I clicked on the link, to be a quiet (though heartfelt) gathering of just a few dozen fans in Bucharest. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Murder?

In a recent magazine I read Jackson was killed by his personal physician. Police say they found a shirt with blood in his closet. --98.64.109.59 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You should take more care of what you read. And I can't believe that Jackson had never cut himself while shaving. Rodhullandemu 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Drug names

Don't have time to do it myself, just stopped by, but the drug names are inconsistent in generic vs brand name. I suggest changing them all to generic names, as not only is it more internationally friendly and easier for all involved, but it's a lot easier to find the generic name of a brand name drug than it is to find which specific brand was involved when only a generic is mentioned.128.250.5.245 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A timeline of June 25 would be helpful

I think a timeline would help readers understand the issues. something like, 10AM(according to Murray) Jackson given Propofil, 12noon, (according to Murray) Murray finds Jackson is not breathing, 911 called 30 minutes later, EMTs find Murray pounding the chest of a stone-cold-dead Jackson. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackson finally laid to rest

It was a private ceremony held last night too. Story --Angeldeb82 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Public access to the Great Mausoleum

Jackson was buried at the Great Mausoluem at Forest Lawn in Glendale, CA. The source which was relied on the most (as of September 6, 2009) for information about the burial was a Time Magazine story which implied that the mausoleum was accessible only to family members and plot owners and which told an anecdote or two about the tight security. Other stories mentioned that the facility was closed to tourists during Jackson's funeral, implying that it is usually open. There evidently are guided tours of the mausoleum, but no one is allowed to just wander around at random, and many graves are off-limits to the public. There is somewhat less restricted public access to the rest of the memorial park. I am not sure how to phrase this without getting into a convoluted and/or inaccurate and/or unencyclopedic explanation, so I just said the mausoleum is "not freely accessible." We may need more of an explanation than that. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

'cardiac arrest', says nothing, most/all dead people don't have beating hearts

I wanted to get rid of the term, 'cardiac arrest'. MJ did not die from heart problems,he died from drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorvetteZ51 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The cardiac arrest phrase comes from the original media reports of Jackson's death in June. At the time, the prescription drugs angle had not emerged. The LA coroner subsequently ruled that the cause of death was acute propofol intoxication.[1] However, since this is a medical report rather than a court ruling, the current wording in the article is broadly correct.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
the latest medical report, from the coroner,says cause of death is homicide.CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
That's an opinion, and a medical rather than a legal opinion. I wouldn't want a smart lawyer to argue that any future trial had been prejudiced by improper advance publicity, and I speak as a smart lawyer. Rodhullandemu 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, homicide is a type of death, not a cause of death. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Conrad Murray

why does conrad murray redirect here? he is the man responsible for killing what was possibly the biggest celebrity of all time. that makes him notable enough for his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.131.125 (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean "allegedly responsible". However, until the legal process is complete, he is arguably not that notable. When he is, he will probably get his own article. Rodhullandemu 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he murdered MJ, I'm saying he is responsible. They've already established that Propofol was the cause, and Murray was the one giving it to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.187.221.54 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERPETRATOR becomes involved here. Wikipedia should follow standard practice and not say anything that could prejudice a future trial, as has been pointed out before.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
And nothing has changed since this discussion. Consensus seems clear that we should wait until after any trial. Rodhullandemu 19:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
There is also consensus that the doctor killed him. --213.130.255.33 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is not the issue here. Conrad Murray is currently facing a manslaughter charge, and the article will have to wait to see what happens.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

which is not relevant anymore. Whether this man is innocent or not ; i argue that he is notable for being present at mj's death, thus being a key person in the death trial. He is exposed to the media and such, being his doctor. He is also in the news for a long time. The separate page is imminent. Marminnetje (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone could be WP:BOLD and create a separate article for Conrad Murray, but at the moment it would risk deletion for WP:ONEEVENT. It is still best to wait to see what happens at any trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that he does not have his own article now, the man was recentlly charged with Michael's death. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP1E and (if convicted, WP:PERP). He's probably not notable enough just yet; if he wasn't notable before Jackson's death, this charge will not necessarily make him notable. Rodhullandemu 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Concur. A charge does not reliably establish the facts alleged, and he is already referenced in this article, with a convenient redirect for those who are curious. As for notability, anything that should be said about Murray can easily fit in this article, rather than another article which would almost certainly be entirely sourced from news stories about Jackson's death, containing material about Murray that never would have been published but for Jackson's death--all of which, of course, is the direct subject of this article, distinct from all others. Steveozone (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is getting quite large.. how long will you guys keep stuffing this into the section instead of making a separate page, what will happen anyways in the future.. he's notable enough for being at MJ's death and being charged. Don't be silly and stating the rulez all the time.. good luck with the article. Marminnetje (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oswald, Sirhan2, Boothe, have their own wiki articls. Why not Murray? CorvetteZ51 (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
German Wikipedia has an article on him: de:Conrad Murray - do they have a different notability criteria to English Wikipedia? Jim Michael (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, what I'm gonna do is translate this page , check it,and propose it for a new article here or do it myself. to boldly go where no man has gone before Marminnetje (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Other concerns/conspiracies

IMHO, the subsection, Death of Michael Jackson#Other concerns (which might as well be called Death of Michael Jackson#Conspiracy theories) does not serve much of a purpose in this article anymore. Yes, these "other concerns" were raised by the Jackson family. But, as the focus of the investigation has long been on only one man--even more so now--these concerns appear to say more about the Jackson family than about the death of Michael Jackson. For a long time now, it has been quite clear in most people's minds that Jackson's death was caused by a single individual: He was not killed by La Toya's theorized "shadowy entourage" or by any other clandestine group of evil-doers. At this point, the subsection might as well allege that Jackson was kidnapped by the ghost of Elvis Presley. In other words, the section looks silly now, and sheds far less light on the meaning or circumstances of Jackson's death than it does on how Jackson's family (understandably, but idiosyncratically) reacted to his death with shock and suspicion. In a nutshell, the section strikes me as WP:UNDUE, even though the ideas therein originate with Jackson's family. This article is not about Jackson's family any more than it is about the bazillion people who crashed Google following the death. The article rightfully notes some significant things that the family did. But widely discredited conspiracy theories, even coming from them, do not seem all that significant anymore. So, anyone agree that the section ought to be removed? Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. I think this is important here, as it is in a separate article about Jackson's death (rather than Jackson himself), particularly where some discussion of the "those around him" (including individual members of his family who were close, or not) is relevant to the circumstances of his death and the apparent seclusion or isolation (including from some family members) in which he lived just prior. The fact that some very close relatives expressed such ideas afterward (well-founded or not), is relevant to Jackson's personal and emotional state prior to his death, and informative as to the personal context of that event. Steveozone (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the proposition that "Jackson's death was caused by a single individual" unless you are referring to his own compulsions or addictions (even then I'd cut him a break and note that others around him didn't help much). Steveozone (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I would also disagree that it's clear that "Jackson's death was caused by a single individual". I read an article by a major news source that an anonymous law enforcement source said they are investigating other doctors amd that charges are likely for at least one more doctor. It's not just about who gave the injections but who wrote the prescriptions. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that the "Other concerns" sections should stay. The victim's family's opinion of an investigation is often considered newsworthy by reliable sources, and I think this makes it significant enough to be included in the article. This particular family also has the money to carry out their own investigation. Last year, they paid for a separate autopsy and hired a private investigator. While the family can't file criminal charges, they can file lawsuits, so their opinions could continue to create newsworthy events for months or years, regardless of whether those opinions look silly. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Glastonbury Festival

The British media was full of stories about tributes and reactions to Jackson's death at the Glastonbury Festival which was taking place at the time. I would say that at least some mention should be made in the 'Media and Internet coverage' section. Some good sources are below (don't have time to add myself unfortunately)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Deadlinks

There are four deadlinks in the article in which I couldn't find any archived versions in web.archive.org:

–MuZemike 00:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 13:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Michael Jackson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 06:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be taking on the big one soon! Canadian Paul 06:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

So here it is:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Big article here, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise that there are a lot of comments:

  1. Reference #18 is broken, references #128 and #143 should note the language of the citation, as should #140 if it starts working again (right now, it's not), some like #47 are missing the date parameter, others like #144 are missing lots of information, and many more are missing at least the accessdate parameter. Overall, the referencing is better than average right now, but needs some work to get up to GA standards. I have gone through every one to see if it's working, so with the above exceptions, you're safe there.
  2. Regarding reference #132, "screenshot of a cached version of Comedy Central's TV Guide for June 26th, 2009 (In Dutch)" is a description, not a proper citation.
  3. A direct quote should always be followed immediately by a direct citation (even if it's the same one used to cite the next sentence). I noticed this in the first paragraph of "Circumstances", the first paragraph of "Health", "Autopsies", the third paragraph of "Drug use allegations" (although I might also argue that this quote is unnecessary overall - see my comments later on), the third paragraph of "Media and Internet coverage", the fourth paragraph of "Grief", and the third paragraph of "Tributes".
  4. Under "Circumstances": "Murray's attorney stated that Murray entered the room in the afternoon and found Jackson in bed and not breathing. Jackson had a weak pulse, and his body was still warm." - You haven't mentioned who "Murray" is yet in the body of the article.
  5. Same section, third paragraph: "a couple miles from the house" sounds too colloquial. Maybe replace with "several" or an exact figure.
  6. Under "Health": I think that the Klein quote can be shortened, maybe by cutting off the last sentence, since direct quotes should be used sparingly (per WP:QUOTE) and since this article is naturally going to be quote-heavy overall.
  7. The word "however" should never begin a sentence, as it disrupts the flow and can almost always be reworded to place the "however" somewhere else. I noticed this in the second paragraph of "Health", the third paragraph of "Tributes", and the third paragraph of "Burial". "Because" is a problem too... could be changed to something like "Due to the fact that" in the first paragraph of "Law enforcement agencies".
  8. There is a picture of Jackson's death certificate, but the caption "Jackson's death certificate does not indicate the cause of death" doesn't seem to tie into the text of the article, as nothing related to that fact is mentioned there. So for someone like me, it leaves me wondering when in the time line of the article (perhaps the "Autopsies" section) did they release a death certificate without a COD? The autopsy section in general feels like it's missing something, but it's hard to explain. It mentions that a first autopsy is conducted, then that Jackson's family arranges for a second one, then what the first autopsy finds, then what the coroner's office says in August. Where did the COD-less death certificate come from and when? It seems that the relevance of the second autopsy isn't made clear.
  9. Under "Drug use allegations", aside from my previous concern about over-quoting, Chopra's quote strays from the focus of the article. Seeing as how it is paraphrased immediately beforehand, you can probably cut it out the direct quote completely and combine the last two paragraphs.
  10. Under "Personal physician", first paragraph - "On June 26, police towed away a car used by Conrad Murray, stating that it might contain medication or other evidence. The police released the car five days later.[33]." - Aside from the extra period and the fact that "a car used by Murray" (without "Conrad")is appropriate per WP:SURNAME, this sentence is a bit awkward in this position, as it is chronologically out of place with the rest of the paragraph. I suggest moving it further down.
  11. Same paragraph, the fact that Jackson insisted that Murray accompany him to England is repeated twice.
  12. Same section, second paragraph: "Politician and minister Jesse Jackson, a friend of Michael Jackson's family, said that the family was concerned about Murray's role. "They have good reason to be [...] he left the scene."" - Again, not sure that the direct quote is necessary, but if you do keep it in, it should follow a colon, not a period
  13. Same paragraph: "Murray's lawyer advised patience until the toxicology results arrived, noting that "things tend to shake out when all the facts are made known". On February 8, 2010, Murray was charged with involuntary manslaughter by prosecutors in Los Angeles." - The way these sentences are placed, it seems like the latter is jab at the comments in the former, almost like a cutaway gag in a sitcom. Is there not even one sentence about finding evidence or considering prosecution or anything that can go between August 2009 and February 2010 regarding the investigation?
  14. Under "Family", you use "survived by" three times in a row, which is a bit distracting. Perhaps the second and third sentences could be combined in a way to eliminate one of the uses?
  15. Under "Media and Internet coverage", the second paragraph ends with "A scene that had featured Jackson's sister La Toya was cut from the film Brüno out of respect toward Jackson's family." - It should probably pointed out that the movie was premiering shortly, as to highlight this comment's relevance.
  16. Same section, third paragraph, that quote can probably be shortened/paraphrased, especially because the next quote is from the same source and is itself long and strays a bit.
  17. Same section, fourth paragraph, I really don't see the point in including the second quote from Limbaugh.
  18. Same section, fifth paragraph - Seeing as how it states that this service may or may not have been related to his death, do we really need it?
  19. Under "Grief", first paragraph - "and across America people left offices and factories to watch the breaking news on television." Is there way that this can be phrased to sound more encyclopedic and less cheesy?
  20. Same paragraph, I think that the bracketed section probably can just be its own, regular sentence.
  21. Same paragraph, "Coincidentally Brüno featured a scene involving Jackson's sister, La Toya Jackson. The scene was soon cut out of the film before the Hollywood premiere in respect to the Jackson family." - This has already been stated and is uncited here - I think it can be removed.
  22. Same section, second paragraph, is the Mandela direct quote necessary?
  23. Same section, third paragraph, aside from the fact that those quotation marks are all over the place, do we really need that many direct quotes from Japanese ministers? And do we need a separate paragraph for each country? If there were one or two fewer direct quotes, it would make sense to at least merge the Japan and Britain paragraphs.
  24. Is there any reason not be spelling out "United Kingdom" and "United States" in this article?
  25. Same section, fifth paragraph, is where the number of direct quotes begins to become overwhelming and incredibly distracting to the flow of the prose.
  26. Under "Tributes", first paragraph, again, is the direct quote from Jesse Jackson necessary?
  27. Same paragraph, why does LL Cool J have a citation for the fact that he recorded a tribute and no one else? Also, merely linking to the song does not verify that Buckethead's song was inspired by Jackson, and there's no excuse not to use a proper cite when one exists on the song's Wikipedia page.
  28. Same section, fourth paragraph - The word "broadcast" is used in two consecutive sentences, when "shown" would probably work better in the second case.
  29. Same paragraph, "Madonna opened the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards with a speech about Michael Jackson." Do we really need to have "Michael" Jackson here, let alone have it Wikilinked?
  30. Same paragraph mentions that he had a part in The Wiz twice.
  31. I only went over the "Record sales" section briefly, but I did notice that Ruth Murray seems not to go to the correct person.
  32. The final sentence of the article (under "Burial") is uncited.

So there are a lot of issues here, and I don't feel that anything more than a quick fix could be applied here within seven days. To improve this article would require careful consideration of the use of quotations and a thorough look at the prose, as well as better referencing, in order to truly improve the article. Therefore, I am going to fail the article for now. This will also give another editor a chance to look it over if you decide to renominate it. Thank you for your work thus far. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Canadian Paul 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances section

DenisRS moved the "Personal Physician" subsection from the "Investigation" section to the "Circumstances" section. I moved it back, as the "Personal Physician" subsection is very much about the investigation. DenisRS replied with the following comments on my talk page, which I am posting this here so that others can give their options:

In current format section "Circumstances" has only "Health" as subsection, which is grossly misleading readers to think that health actually has relation to Jackson's death -- while no related sources point to that and while "Personal physician" is what actually directly part of circumstances of death. Now this subsection is buried down and readers even have no idea that he charged the murder until they get there, which is ridiculuous. Murray's actions, according to authorities, is the key circumstance of Jackson's death. DenisRS (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First, Murray has been charged with manslaughter, not murder. There's quite a difference.

Second, Murray's charges are discussed in the lead (introduction) section, so it's hardly buried. The autopsy section (which comes right after the health section) also states that Jackson's death was ruled a homocide.

Third, authorities may or may not think that Murray's actions are the key circumstance of Jackson's death. They have been investigating multiple doctors. The fact that Murray was the first one charged does not necessarily make him the key doctor. The authorities are apparently more concerned about who wrote the prescriptions than who gave the injections, and we don't yet know who authorities think wrote the prescriptions.

As far as the "Health" section itself, the last paragraph (anonymous sources on alledged autopsy conclusions which the coroner has denied) can be removed, in my opinion. But Jackson's health is certainly relevant to a discussion of his death. For example, any health problems could be used as part of a defense, if this ever goes to trial. If you're concerned that having "Health" underneath "Circumstances" is misleading, perhaps we should look at moving Health somewhere else. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Health" subsecton's current placement definitetly does not reflect authorities/investigators/coroners position, yet present as the only subsection of "Circumstances". It is grossly misleading and thus such structure itself consistutes POV, which is prohibited by Wikipedia principles. "Health", probably, should be leveled-up to section status, but placed after "Investigation". DenisRS (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, such a change to the Health section would be fine with me, but I want to give other editors a week to respond before making the change to the article. If someone else wants the current section structure maintained, that's also fine with me. I don't see any POV problem here. Not all circumstances are causes. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree; lets see if there will be additional opinions. As to POV, I meant that according to sources who directly investigate Jackson's case Dr.Murray was deciding circumstance of singer's death. Yet a collection of hearsay, a low quality source information, is now placed above first-class sources' information on Dr.Murray. Obviosly a tabloidish slant POV in this structure -- that is why I noticed the problem. DenisRS (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I still don't see a POV problem here. I've already said that the last paragraph of the Health section could be deleted, in my opinion. The rest of the Health section is dominated by Klein, one of Jackson's doctors, describing what Jackson was like at an appointment three days before his death. How can that be low quality? How can that be tabloidish? There's a bit of hearsay outside of Klein's comments, but to label the whole thing as a collection of hearsay is quite the exageration. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I just removed the {{Conspiracy theories}} navbox as, unlike the other deaths listed therein, there do not appear to be any credible conspiracy theories relating to Jackson's death. – ukexpat (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof in on you, that is why they are not any "credible" consipracy theories on Michael's death. So where is your evidence? It's nowhere, so please put it back, what you took off. And why did you take it off btw, why all that urgency to dissociate conspiracy theories from michael? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.25.194 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on Ukexpat. It's on the accuser, i.e. whoever alleges that this is a conspiracy theory. What you are demanding is negative proof (see formal fallacies, Argument from ignorance, and Evidence of absence. By this logic, for example, I could claim that the death of Ted Kennedy was a conspiracy. The evidence all points to natural causes, but you cannot prove to me that it wasn't a conspiracy. Wikipedia articles are required to have reliable sources, therefore this can't be listed as a conspiracy until someone produces a reliable source. The burden of proof is on whoever chooses to do so. To answer your question, the "urgency" is the desire to remove misinformation from wikipedia, but is even more urgent due to possible libel against the accused doctor. For more information, see the talk page for the conspiracy template. Klopek007 (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous statements about autopsy

The last paragraph of the Health section discusses some anonymous statements about the autopsy. I will be deleting that paragraph because (1) the coroner's office issued a denial, and (2) the statements haven't had much staying power in the media. However, this year Fox News did cover two of the allegations, that Jackson may have been balding and emaciated. I don't think that the balding is related to Jackson's death, but his weight could be. For example, there is the question of whether Murray gave Jackson the wrong dose for his weight. Because of this, I will add the Fox News characterization of Jackson's weight to the autopsy section. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrongful death complaint

Just got a copy from TMZ. Several major points strike me as notable, but I don't see where I can squeeze them in this overlong, rambling article, plus writing this directly on my part would be partially original research. But I want to flag these now in case they do get written about in third party sources in the future, then we can cite to those sources and insert these points.

  • No monetary damages requested because California prohibits that in the ad quod damnum clause. The $75,000 part is to establish an amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction, though.
  • The "nominal plaintiffs" craziness is a desperate attempt by plaintiff's counsel to plead around the requirement of complete diversity of citizenship for diversity jurisdiction. Normally when you have a wrongful death case, all heirs must join as plaintiffs, or else one has to name the uncooperative heirs as defendants, so the court has jurisdiction to declare the share of damages to which they are entitled. But doing that in this case destroys diversity because then you have California citizens on both sides. For whatever reason, Joe Jackson wants to fight Murray in federal court, and if he wants to do that, he needs to show that all the Jacksons are on one side, as California citizens, and that Murray and his companies are Nevada citizens on the other side. Hence, the attempt to name the other heirs as nominal plaintiffs, which Murray's lawyer will probably object to like crazy.
  • The initials stamped by the clerk as part of the case number indicate the district and magistrate judges randomly assigned to this case. JFW is John F. Walter. AJWs is Andrew J. Wistrich. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovery cancels Michael Jackson autopsy TV show

This is in the news today, perhaps it should go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Motive? Non-standard CPR

Murray must have had some motive for not moving Jackson to the floor. any idea what it was? CorvetteZ51 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I read a statement from his attonery saying that Murray was concerned he might injur Jackson if he did CPR on the floor, because Murray's body is so much larger than Jackson's. With the trial in progress and the potential for this article to change significantly due to the trial, I don't feel like tracking down a source at the moment. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

This value is a redirect of this value http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Murray&diff=357475270&oldid=50152755

Conrad (born 14th December 1977, Ashton-under-Lyne, England) is an award-winning radio presenter and actor

  1. redirect Death of Michael Jackson

Murray gained plaudits and honours for his radio work for BBC GMR and Century FM before he shot to fame as result of his starring role in 24 Hour Pary People. Renowned for his essays on Man United and music - many of which appear in award winning fanzine United We Stand, it is reputed that, as a sociable six year old, Murray introduced Morrissey to Marr and The Smiths were formed soon after.

This false redirection is a criminal offense. please change the redirection - you are offending an innocent man which is not 'dr.murray'.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinsa (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The value "conrad_murray" points to a british actor! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conrad_Murray&diff=357475270&oldid=50152755

The value "conrad_murray" refers to a false identity. "Conrad (born 14th December 1977, Ashton-under-Lyne, England) is an award-winning radio presenter and actor." --Karinsa (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That was an old version. Conrad Murray now redirects to this article. Conrad Murray the actor does not appear to be notable enough for an article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
It now redirects to Trial of Conrad Murray. 89.194.66.102 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

His 4th rather 1st child

His eldest son is not mentioned, the one thats about 20 from a European mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biebersbro (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence that young man was fathered by Jackson. 89.194.66.102 (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy speculation?

Is the conspiracy speculation in the "Family reaction" section really appropriate for a Wikipedia article? It's not particularly well-written, either. SeraphisCain (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just took that entire section out. Besides being completely irrelevant and poorly written, most of the information in it is original opinion and the sources cited do not reflect what was written. NicosRM (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Case article merger

I propose a merger of the page Michael Jackson Estate vs. AEG Live to here per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N for stand alone articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.omicsonline.org/2157-7145/2157-7145-2-138.php?aid=2172.[predatory publisher] Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. January (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  • The section "Forensic anesthesiologist's report" was copied directly from the abstract. It was added by a sock of Scholarscentral who has been promoting OMICS Publishing Group, the publisher of the journal. This publisher does not have a proper peer review process so this publication is probably not a reliable source. January (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

Article recently got vandalized, in "Autopsies" section, I'm suggesting edit protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.64.34 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I will request semi-protection for the page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014

I would like to edit this page so I can add extra information and more pictures. I would also fix some mistakes. DroneOfTheWiki (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights. - but as you have been blocked that is rather academic. - Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

'cardiac arrest' is a euphemism for a dead person

the first paragraph of this article is intellectually dishonest. MJ died because he was pumped up with drugs. CorvetteZ51 (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

WTH is likeness

"The estate estimated that the value of Jackson's likeness is only $2,105; whereas the IRS estimated that the likeness to be worth $434.26 million"

WTH is "likeness" here which is Lions's share of his "$567.6 million in assets"? I cannot believe it is just a portrait. üser:Altenmann >t 05:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Interwiki of Portuguese Wikipedia

Please, someone who is able to edit the article, change the interwiki of Portuguese Wikipedia, which is currently pointing to a section in their Michael Jackson article. They actually have an article only about his death, it's here. Thanks. 177.45.40.235 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that, despite is everything right in Wikidata, a interwiki set within this article is making the Portuguese Wikipedia link be another one. It's just needed to remove that interwiki and it'll be correct. 201.1.204.227 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Death of Michael Jackson. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

The section on family reaction should be augmented to show that Paris Jackson stated in an interview with Rolling Stone that her father was murdered. See:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/paris-jackson-michael-jacksons-daughter-speaks-out-w462501 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:500:625A:3900:32A2:64A6:1BB8 (talk • contribs)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I would add this paragraph at the end of section 4.1:

In 2017, Paris Jackson gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine in which she stated that she was "absolutely" convinced that her father had been murdered.[3] 2601:1C2:500:625A:21E1:19F7:2933:EDF9 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Events by themes: In Odessa honoured memory of Michael Jackson, UNIAN (June 29, 2009)
  2. ^ (in Dutch)Hulde aan Michael Jackson in Brussel, Gazet van Antwerpen (July 7, 2009)
  3. ^ http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/paris-jackson-michael-jacksons-daughter-speaks-out-w462501

Baldness

The article should mention Jackson was almost completely bald and wore a wig: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/5681155/Michael-Jackson-emaciated-and-bald-with-only-pills-in-his-stomach-leaked-autopsy-report.html (Gysi1 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

MJ Death Hoax

Please unprotect this article. Michael did'nt died. He is still alive. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woDH5hQAT3E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.162.228 (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

 Not done clearly fake when his death has been well-established for years. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Updated postmortem music sales

A lot of the information under "Record Sales" is already outdated. "Jackson's record sales increased dramatically in the hours following his death. His album Thriller climbed to number one on the American iTunes music chart, and another eight made it into the top 40.[26] In the UK, where he would have performed in less than three weeks, his albums occupied 14 of the top 20 places on the Amazon.co.uk sales chart, with Off The Wall topping the chart."

This article has information a bit more recent, http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i344418db676344f0d77ca668d6cc4a43

But I think things are going to keep changing over the next week or so. I'm not complaining about this or anything, but just saying that whoever is interested in editing the article should be on the look out for these new figures. They seem amazingly noteworthy.

Record sales

9 Michael's albums are on first 9 positions. Someone could wrote bout it cause there's only information they're in top 40.

Should we say it was really 1 billion people worldwide watching?

According to the "main" Michael Jackson page, the worldwide audience of 1 billion people didn't seem to be represented as a very accurate/reliable estimation.

What I mean is that the main page says that the audience may have been 1 billion, maybe not.

Can we sort of elaborate on this to be sure of it?

Thanks.

Now it's stated that at least 2.5B people watched the memorial, without any source verifying this. The sources cited state that CNN estimated 1B, but I can't find any source for this. That 1/3 of the population of earth(including infants and small children) would watch a celebrity's memorial is doubtful.21:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.135.155 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Death of Michael Jackson. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Death of Michael Jackson. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The death of Michael Jackson

  On June 25, 2009 people say that the famous singer Michael Jackson died in his house that was on North Carolwood Drive that was in Holmby Hills neighborhood in Los Angeles, California but other people have different thought and feelings about this problem, some people say he overdosed  by hes doctor    and other people say someone killed him but there are other picture of him that have some what of proof that he did not die in his house.
 The photo that i am talking about is him laying in a hospital bed with a pipe taped up his nose and him laying in the bed dead, so what i am assuming is that his personal physician Conrad Murry did this to him or other doctor that were either jealous of him or they didn't like him, but there is a chance that someone else that may have had a grudge on him for what he did to his youngest child Prince Michael Jackson II, who is also named "Blanket" when he was only six months old but no one knows but if you read in other articles about this same thing it clearly states " Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and served only two years of his four-year prison sentence, early release per good behavior" and now that people know what he did in 2011, there is a possibility that he did the same thing to Jackson in 2009, but we cant be so sure about this because there is a chance that he didn't do it.
 Some people say that Michael is still alive which i am saying he's not because there are pictures to prove that he has died and its sad that those people are saying that he is still alive because his kids were at his funeral and what i am assuming saw his body in the casket so its most likely upsetting to his kids, but now his kids that are Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., and the youngest Prince Michael Jackson II are all living their lives happily while still visiting there dads grave and still thinking about there wonderful father, wonderful 20 year old Paris is now a model and she enjoys her job, and 21 year old Michael Jr. is being a loving brother, and with the 16 year old he is doing good in school and is continuing with it until he graduates.Michaeljacksonlover13 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Made by Taylor Michael Carmichael

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Micheal died when he was 30 years old Bacona3 (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

No, he was 50. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2019

it states in the article about the ol mj's death that it was a homicide how he died but he committed suicide due to an overdose and it says it on your own article and this evidence contradicts your own article Boomyaxis (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: He didn't commit suicide. Overdose doen't automatically indicate suicide. NiciVampireHeart 10:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Info from court testimony

There's a ton of information about the circumstances immediately surrounding Jackson's death that could be added to this article from the witness testimony for the California v. Murray case. I'm thinking the testimony from the bodyguards, paramedics, etc. Any thoughts?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Michael_Jackson/Archive_7&oldid=1142132360"