This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/entertainment/celebrity_news/dpg_michael_jackson_hospital_lwf_062509_2611501 Pontificake ( talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a source on MSNBC.com per news wire sources: Michael Jackson rushed to hospital conman33 ( . . .talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
He's dead.
Jacob Richardson (
talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also on TMZ Hill of Beans ( talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected, all done. PhilBroadway ( talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a joke I was watching TV, he is really truly dead.
"The cause of death is reported to be cardiac arrest." I'm a doctor and this sentence is non-sensical: cardiac arrest simply means that your heart has stopped and is obviously true of any dead person. Cause of death implies a reason why somebody's heart stopped. As a side point cardiac arrest is different to heart attack (which some news sites seem to be confusing). Heart attack means myocardial infarction which is literally death of some of the heart muscle caused by not enough blood going through the coronary arteries. Heart attack implies nothing about whether the heart is still beating or not (although cardiac arrest is not uncommon after a heart attack). sodium
confirmed by BBC News and RAI News 24 (Italian state media).-- Xania talk 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Goodnight sweet crazy prince of pop
Reports of his death. Basket of Puppies 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This hasn't been confirmed yet. The only "source" of this information is TMZ. RAI is reporting him dead with TMZ as their source. BBC UK is not reporting him dead. Neither is MSNBC. Neither is CNN. I'm not saying the story is BS, but there hasn't been a secondary source of confirmation yet. Soccernamlak ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Despite a couple of headlines saying he's dead, no actual stories are claiming to know whether he's dead or not.
This is the original TMZ article which has been going around Twitter a lot seems to be the original source of the reports of his death -- Dolphonia ( talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This article also says dead, but it refs TMZ. KiTA ( talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN.com Ticker: "BREAKING NEWS: L.A. Times reports that Michael Jackson has died" KiTA ( talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Or has he just gone into hiding?
"Debra Opri, a former Jackson family attorney, confirmed that the legendary singer, 50, was rushed to the hospital Thursday afternoon, where he later died at 3:15 p.m. EDT after falling into a deep coma." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529103,00.html
-- Tarantulas ( talk) 23:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could the article be fully protected for a while, or we will be removing poorly thought out edits all night? Regret having to ask for this.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Reuters has just reported believed (my emphasis) dead. Full-protection until it's clear what's going on. Also taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this talkpage before it becomes a BLP nightmare (assuming the allegations aren't true). – iride scent 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The cited source for the cardiac arrest is pointing to the Rolling Stones band rather than Rolling Stone the magazine. #148. Tarc ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BBC News, Reuters and AP are NOT (at present) reporting the death of Michael Jackson at present, they are simply stating that TMZ is reporting his death. Please can we calm down, Wikipedia is an important website and we really don't need to precipitate further confusion with premature reports here. Nick ( talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
until CNN reports his death, it's not true. TMZ is just a glorified Tabloid. Jru Gordon ( talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Times and CBSNews are now reporting his death.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gK_BZYsLvb9-YlmofeU7Ye4OzVuQ
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/michael-jackson-dead-20090626-cyjb.html
These seem to be two reputable links. Especially the one that's not TMZ - a tabloid one that might just be trying to sell. I'd wait at least another half hour before writing anything official though.
Wow. I almost made a joke about WP:BLP not applying anymore. Then I realised, this is actually sad. :/ Lewis Collard! ( lol, internet) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
He is not dead, but in a coma. Don't change the article to dead until a very reliable reference is available. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I would wait till a press release comes out. What's the LA Times and AP's source, I wonder. We should hold out until we have a confirmed reputable source, and a press release would probably be best. Capgun2713 ( talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Link is here: [6] - Nick talk 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, his death was confirmed. Rangond ( talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
it is also on msnbc and other major news sites now
I see the page is fully protected - apparently preemptively? That would be counter to policy... Evercat ( talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN reports he may be in a coma due to cardiac arrest. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
At all people: cool down, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a real-time portrait of the world. Let the facts be discernible, and then people will edit the arcticle accordingly
nihil (
talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Really? And from what year does your definition of "Encyclopedia" come from? Any reason why the fact that he's been declared dead isn't in and of itself noteworthy, whether it's true or not? I think Wikipedia is starting to turn into a bureaucratic shadow of what it was intended to be. Let the people edit. That's what this place is for. Bjquinn ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you say it's NOT real-time? It appears to me as being SO! Edits are automatically posted and, unless challenged immediately, they show up in matter of seconds! Wouldn't you call that real-time... I think I would! NiteHacker ( talk) 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer truth over speed to be honest.... 78.16.106.3 ( talk) 03:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This page needs to be unlocked to the extent that you will allow his death to be noted. EnglishHornDude ( talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article could be semi-protected and vandalism dealt with as it occurs.-- Susan118 talk 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
According to local publications and law enforcement. http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_35630.aspx -- .: Alex :. 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed dead 17 minutes ago. TFBCT1 ( talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated. Ian¹³ /t 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that we should NOT update the article to show his death until an official statement is made, since Wikipedia should be focused more on accuracy rather than updating speedily with unverified claims User:CodingBucky
Fri 26 June. 9.07am EST. STILL not confirmed dead. If google results are clicked into, the second sentence of CNN, BBC and other reports state they do not confirm his death. ~encise
Is it really necessary to lock down the whole article? Semi Protect should be fine now that his death is confirmed. Aspensti ( talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So only admins can be trusted and everyone else is presumed to be a vandal? Now I know how the anonymous IP editors feel...-- Susan118 talk 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Its stupid to assume that article is going to be vandalized just because the man died. Plus there are plenty of people babysitting the page now to insure that no off color edits are made.
Aspensti (
talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
it's somewhat justified to do so as there's a bunch of idiots out there whose sole purpose is to create accounts and vandalize articles. Pyromania153 ( talk) 02:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to throw a word of support to the admins: this page would become the messiest battleground of the decade if it weren't protected. And, here's something else to think of: anyone who can't survive a few days without editing one specific single page has a real problem....! FlaviaR ( talk) 04:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Whomever added citations 2 and 3 regarding Michael's death needs to update their retrieval dates, as I'm quite certain you didn't read them on June 25, 3909.
Also, in the Background box, it should be listed that he died in LA, California.
TX, Hcurtis ( talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we have "hospital" spelt correctly in the last sentence of the introduction please? At the moment it's "hostpital". Thanks. DBaK ( talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's official: CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson/index.html Marianolu ( talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC) It is now confirmed that he has died:
This is not a quote of TMZ - it is from official sources. --Time to update folks. That is what it is. -- Valyim ( talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/michael-jackson-dies-death-dead-cardiac-arrest/ Once things are clearer, this article should be edited. RIP mike 83.43.149.8 ( talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)----
Sky News and BBC have confirmed his death
---They havent confirmed anything. They are going by what the TMZ website has said. --
Deathtrap3000 (
talk) 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Micheal Jackson's death is on the front page of the Drudge Report and is reported 'confirmed' by Fox News and KHNL Honolulu. Da Killa Wabbit ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My local news here in Charleston, WV just said so, too. Sailorknightwing ( talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's official. CNN has confirmed that he has died. DAP566 ( talk 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's just been broadcast on Sky News on TV and it's on their website too. Sky News
The BBC Confirm he's been taken to hospital but don't sat any more than that BBC article Cloudy ( talk) 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So far, TMZ's the only one reporting his death. Sky News is repeating TMZ's report, while BBC, CNN, Reuters, etc., only report that he's been taken the hospital following his heart attack. There's been no independent report of his death. IMHO, TMZ's not a particularly credible news agency. I'd rather wait for word from someone who isn't just repeating their claim. - FeralDruid ( talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
He's had a heart attack, reported by LAT [8] Safety Cap ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Jackson's legal representation should release an official statement through Reuters and the Press Association that will be picked up by the major news sources. Let's wait until that confirmation comes out from his people before updating the page. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Times confirms death. -- beefyt ( talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Even my local news has confirmed that Michael Jackson is dead too that means ABC, NBC, CBS as well will be reporting on this too but don't rush to edit this article take your time in doing so. -- Red Polar Bear Ranger ( Red Polar Bear Ranger)Louis Marinucci
Any reason why we can't update to say that it was REPORTED that he died? I mean, even if he's not dead this whole event will be worthy of including in the article later on anyway. Bjquinn ( talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, LA Times reports death. CBS and CNN seeking independent confirmation (via live report). - FeralDruid ( talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN says: Entertainer Michael Jackson has died after being taken to a hospital on Thursday after suffering cardiac arrest, according to multiple reports including the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press. CNN has not confirmed his death.
Exploding Boy (
talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
ABC's World News led with "Michael Jackson 1958-2009" and said he had died. Does anyone still doubt this?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
E! Online cites Joe Jackson; the Beeb has just confirmed Jackson's death.—22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (I mean Dah31 ( talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
{{ Edit protected}} Admin, please add the following {{Wikinews|Report: Singer, songwriter Michael Jackson dies}}. Should be in external links section then moved to section about death when that section is created. Thanks, Calebrw ( talk) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one is planning to use any sources that quote TMZ, the National Enquirer of the internet. -- Susan118 talk 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The accessdate for both of the death references has been incorrectly set to the year 3909, and they should have a filled-in date as well. GreenReaper ( talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Admin, please also remove, Category:Living people, add Category:2009 Deaths; Correct infobox- birthdate- ((birthdate|1958|8|29)), ((dda|2009|6|25|1958|8|29)). The format is correct as written except use {{ }}, not (( )). Thank you. TFBCT1 ( talk) 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we please switch to the death date and age template in the infobox? Gage ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Michael Jackson's Reported Death Roils Wikipedia". Exploding Boy ( talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been bold and started Death of Michael Jackson. This is looking one big story. Francium12 ( talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is "big" enough for it's own article. C'mon I have thousands of good edits, stop treating me like a vandal admins! :-) Francium12 ( talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of another admin unblocking the article I started. I need to run for admin one day! Francium12 ( talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The admin (
User:Golbez who deleted the article abused process. Peremptory deletion saying 'fork' is not a valid reason
[9]
It might mot be a useful article but there's no need to get all jumped-up and start deleting things out-of-process. What's wrong with people?
Michael Jackson's Reported Demise Roils Wikipedia. Exploding Boy ( talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the death template because there's no official statement of his death. Feel free to readd it should information change. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not safe. Wikipedia has to maintain neutrality. The LA Times article is reporting he died at 3:15, there would have been an official statement by now. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BBC, Sky, CNN all confirming 100% now.. Dvmedis ( talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently being heavily edited because its subject has recently died. Information about their death and related events may change significantly and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
most recent updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
{{
editprotected}}
badmachine (
talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This template should have NEVER been removed. It has been confirmed by multiple sources including the Associated Press.
the author of the preceding comment can be found in the talk page history.
What are you talking about Ryan, Sephiroth storm? WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG FOR NOT ADDING THE INFORMATION!!! Not too long ago I would turn to Wikipedia if I wanted up-to-date information. Now you're too scare to add a Reports of death section or anything like that? Because you're too snobby to believe TMZ? This line of thinking is ruining Wikipedia. Tristanb ( talk) TMZ is not a reliable source. Other news sources either quoted TMZ or just reported it as a fact without quoting sources. It was perfectly reasonable to remove information 'confirming' his death from the article until there is a fully official press release or several independant confirmations from reputable, non-anonymous sources. Even AP report was just a rumor from an insider. It is better to update the page a few hours later than to report people as dead prematurely. Aigarius ( talk) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The link to the article by The Australian should be removed as the only part about his death is where it reports that TMZ has said it, it is currently cite 4. I Grave Rob §talk♥ stalk§ 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article clearly shouldn't be locked. Yes, it is going to be a high traffic article, but that is irrelevant. You do not lock articles in response to "Oh, it MIGHT be vandalized". Indeed, it is discouraging to new people, who often come to Wikipedia BECAUSE they hear a news report and want to contribute, and it is bad for the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm sure those here can handle what vandalism may come, and it will allow the article to be improved. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The ignorant belief that he is not dead is simply wrong. Every major news outlet is confirming it. TMZ ISN'T THE ONLY ONE CONFIRMING IT. Please, get your facts right when you are trying to block progress. Ignorant thinking like that ruins Wikipedia, which used to be a good place for up-to-date information. Block it from users younger than 1 day to prevent this vandalism, but not for everyone else. -- Scouto2 ( talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Put age under death, and not born. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
USAToday has confirmed the death. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
USA Today is simply referring the AP report. No statement has been made by either UCLA Hospital or His Lawyer.
The edit notice on this article is unneeded and out of line IMO. It assumes a false premise, that the page was protected due to a dispute. In fact, it was protected preemptively so that the page doesn't "get swamped." There is nothing wrong with sourced admin updates. Oren0 ( talk) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone out to create a separate "Death" section, so in-coming information can go in there and people looking specifically for it know where to look. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article needs {{Recent death|Jackson, Michael|date=June 2009}} at the top.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Typical Wikipedia. Something remotely controversial comes along, and the Admins wade in with full protection immediately. What ever happened to assuming good faith and letting the facts speak for themselves? 82.13.161.114 ( talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please update persondata.-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added the template. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Date of death is 2009. 62comets ( talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Shiggity ( talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You fully protect it because of WP:BLP problems, then use blogs as the only sources of his death. Good job.-- Otterathome ( talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to point out names, as every admin that edited and failing to notice the blog sources should have removed it anyway. For reference purposes and before they get lost in the surge of edits, here are the diffs of admins adding blogs as sources whilst the article was fully protected.
Its what CNN is saying. I think you should wait a little more, we are an encyclopedia not a news blog! Regarding such famous artist is expected to have lots of speculations! Khullah ( talk) 23:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
in under 1:00 almost everyone in the entire country (maybe the world) knows about this..
Every one on Wikipedia get to CNN they are going to release a statement soon.
"Jackson suffered a heart attack, according to father Joe Jackson, and never recovered." -- should be noted on main page?
source - [www.eonline.com/uberblog/b131173_michael_jackson_pops_thrilling_king.html] This seems to be a more reliable source to use on the main page where the references of his death is noted. It's already in the references but NOT in the article in the sentence of his death.
According to most all the sources, he was not breathing when he arrived at the hospital. -- if this is the case, this makes the main page incorrect and needs to be changed!
I think this is as official as you can get... do you think??? NiteHacker ( talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
On Thursday 25th June 2009, around 12:26 at the age of 50, Michael Jackson was rushed to the UCLA Medical Center after he was found not breathing in his home, according to reports. He was subsequently reported dead after being in a coma and CPR was performed. The supposed cause of death was cardiac arrest. [1]
This confirms it. He's dead. I will update the wiki with the words above (being my own).Bahahs 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This sentence appears in the article. This wouldn't apply now considering the circumstances I take it so I believed this should be changed? -- Super Shy Guy Bros. Not shy? 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence is contained in the article: "In late 2006, Jackson agreed to share joint custody of his first two children with ex-wife Debbie Rowe.[129]" However, the source provided states that they reached a confidential agreement; it doesn't say anything about them agreeing to joint custody. I'll look for a source, but I'm pretty sure that she has no contact, or any custody at all, of the two children. Gwyka ( talk) 03:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What's up with all the peremptory deletions? There's a process to follow. Indefinitely protecting the page saying "inappropriate article" is frankly stupid given that there are other "Death Of" articles, such as Princess Diana, Kurt Cobain, Adolf Hitler, etc.
The article can now be created, now that the coroner has confirmed death. However, there is little information to make a new article. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about the recentism of Jackson's death can be found here. Please remain civil and do not complicate things. Zoo Fari 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"On June 25, 2009, he collapsed at his home in Los Angeles. After being taken to the hospital in a coma, Jackson was pronounced dead."
I was going to say something about it... it was posted for quite awhile but is NOT accurate! THANK YOU, to whomever, that removed that statement! It was NOT clear and still is unclear as to how he was found and whether they really revived him or not and so whether he was in a coma or not is really NOT known at this point. Several sources say he was found not breathing at his home or when help arrived... this part is not clear... and so the above statement may NOT be correct... especially the 'in a coma' and 'he collapsed'. As far as I know, there's NO definite statement from the father (or family) as to what happened or what state he was in or when he was actually dead... although, it's really not official until you are checked by a professional or taken to the hospital.
A Death section should be added, but it's TOO early to add, and facts stated there (with reliable sources)... but only after the traffic dies down and the facts become known and verified. IE Ed McMahon is a good example and it seems to be correct to me! If people want the facts (if reliable?) can 'google' them and find it! Just letting people post information indiscriminately is leading to false information being posted over and over and needlessly! NiteHacker ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that this sentence, in the lead, is important enough to require an inline cite. Before I tag it, may I have comments, please? TerriersFan ( talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE says nothing about cites in the lede being "exceptional"... i pulled 4 featured articles from the music section, Celine Dion, [Ellis Paul]], The Supremes and Gwen Stefani... they all have citations in the lead.
How about a section on the plastic surgery he underwent. Very significant yet it appears that the author of this article has left it out. Bias?
Shouldn't MJ be named in a Jehovah's Witness category? Consider, e.g., either Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses or Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses. Rammer ( talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{edit protected}}
Pls add to Death section:
MickMacNee ( talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Admins: In the Infobox, there should not be brackets around these years — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be mentioned in the death section of this article the impact of his passing among fans as the outpouring of grief is rivaled only by the deaths of Elvis Presley and John Lennon as shown by news stories such as at [14]. In Detroit, fans gathered at the old Motown HQ Hitsville U.S.A. (now the Motown Museum) to hold vigil as it was there that Jackson began his career as found at [15]. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
For God's sake.. why do we need complete edit protection?? I WAS going to add into the article the following citation.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm (BBC Confirms).. Dvmedis ( talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You guys happy now? -- 142.110.227.163 ( talk) 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN is reporting that the Jackson family lawyer has said that he had been using (and possibly abusing) perscription drugs. They are also saying that he collapsed, rather than being found unconscious (idk what the main article says). Jcsavestheday ( talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Coroner on the phone on BBC World News live on air confirmed the death and said that he was proclaimed dead at 14:26 California time, twis was transmitted 3 minutes ago. Aigarius ( talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There will be a news conference held by the UCLA hospital. CNN will be carrying this news conference, and it should hopefully give us more concrete details as to what happened. 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Jcsavestheday ( talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Locking out everyone but Admins is overkill at this point.--
MahaPanta (
talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Today, june 25, 2009, Michael Jackson has died. He was taken to the UCLA medical center.
more info: LOS ANGELES – Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop" who reigned over the music world like no other, died Thursday as he prepared for a comeback bid to vanquish nightmare years of sexual scandal and financial calamity. He was 50.
Jackson died at UCLA Medical Center after being stricken at his rented home in Holmby Hills. Paramedics tried to resuscitate him at his home for nearly three-quarters of an hour, then rushed him to the hospital, where doctors continued to work on him.
"It is believed he suffered cardiac arrest in his home. However, the cause of his death is unknown until results of the autopsy are known," his brother Jermaine said. Police said they were investigating, standard procedure in high-profile cases.
Jackson's death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music's premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.
His 1982 album "Thriller" — which included the blockbuster hits "Beat It," "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" — is the best-selling album of all time, with an estimated 50 million copies sold worldwide.
At the time of his death, Jackson was rehearsing hard for what was to be his greatest comeback: He was scheduled for an unprecedented 50 shows at a London arena, with the first set for July 13.
As word of his death spread, MTV switched its programming to play videos from Jackson's heyday. Radio stations began playing marathons of his hits. Hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital. In New York's Times Square, a low groan went up in the crowd when a screen flashed that Jackson had died, and people began relaying the news to friends by cell phone.
link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_en_mu/us_obit_michael_jackson
i do not think the page should be fully protected administrators have enough on their hands. also if you keep it protect for now i will remove template about a recent deth. Parker1297 ( talk) 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Should Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction be added to the article, or are we better off waiting? Cooltrainer Hugh ( talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There are two different parts going on in his article talking about his death. Can any sensible admin please clear this up. user:Stevencho
The inline citations in the lead are not required as there information is referenced later on in the article. This is a basic principle of writing the lead for a Wikipedia article and, until he died, this article maintained that principle. Please remove those inline citations from the lead. Jolly Ω Janner 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove death section per wikipedia (format/precedence) on the deceased. It should above the legacy section as well. Valoem talk 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Broken template. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please fix the info box. Some admin protected the page AGAIN, and now the info box is distorted.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Someone put a link to the Wikinews page on his death? Just a suggestion. -- Oldlaptop321 ( talk· contribs) 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully protected this article due to the extreme traffic and three instances of vandalism in the latest minutes, added to several infobox screw ups and previous vandalism. In those circumstances, this cannot be tolerated. This article received almost 1 million hits per hour recently according to this, any vandalism or BLP violations will be seen by thousands of persons. Cenarium ( talk) 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't a pre-emptive full protection. The article is highly visible and suffered from various disruptive edits that were hard to find and even worse to try to revert due to edit conflicts. Ignoring this rule seems like the best option at this point. — Σ xplicit 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is a policy. Perhaps you can explain how one shouldn't ignore a policy that allows one to ignore other policies. — Σ xplicit 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you cared to check the history, and my three rollbacks in the latest seven minutes prior to protection ? Vandalism by three autoconfirmed users: [16], [17], [18]. Cenarium ( talk) 01:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Full protection is completely unnecessary and damages the article and th project. Vandalccounts can easily be blocked, admins who continue to edit should be desysopped as admins do not have editing privileges. This is clearly a disruptive protection, shame on whoever did it. Thanks,
SqueakBox
talk 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It is astonishing just how ignorant people have become. A person dies, and they take it as a sigh to vandalize and tabliodize the article. What ever became of courtesy and common sense? I sometimes wish it were permited to erase such worthless individuals from existance.
I recall a saying from when I was young that really should be followed and heeded
DO NOT SPEAK ILL OF THE DEAD.... LEST YOU JOIN THEM.
TSAinc (
talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I agree with protecting the page: the edits were coming in so fast that it made the servers extremely slow and one time even stopped working, also when vandalism would occur it was hard to trace it etc. etc. Anyways, the image in the infobox is streched above it's resolution, is there a way to reduce it's size to the image's resolution? Streched images are harder to see detail in. Thanks. [| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|] 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Check out all the admins and other high-ups who viciously erased the contributions of other people, eager to help, because the admin personally hadn't been informed of the death. As if reality somehow didn't matter unless it was first approved by them? All of them were totally wrong. Not wrong about some pedophile rockstar being alive or not, I don't really care about that.
These editors are wrong in that they completely erased someone elses probably hand typed contributions - perhaps even someone else who isn't totally familiar with Wiki but bothered to learn some of the basics. They took facts presented by someone else looking to help, and destroyed them without bothering to verify that the contribution was actually an error. Whoops - you can use today's history page for the edits on this article to build up a nice list of wiki admins who are entirely too eager to destroy someone else's work.
That really sucks, I think. These people should be called out on their actions publicly, so that perhaps they put more thought into them next time. Zaphraud ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Only admin can now edit this page, so can an admin member please delete the last sentence on the '2008–2009: Milestones, real estate, planned return to live performance' section as obviously the shows are not going to happen. RM-Taylor 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think he means the sentence at the end of the section, viz "These shows may now be canceled due to Jackson's death." which does seem a bit obvious. Evercat ( talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
People keep on messing with the infobox and I have had to fix it 3 times. I would appreciate it if this would stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderson9 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached, somewhat, that it was incorrect to fully protect the article. ( here) Please cite your reasons for fully protecting, otherwise, remove the protection please. -- Blurpeace ( talk) 00:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the death shouldn't be overly emphasized in the lead of the article on Michael Jackson, it should have at least one sentence talking about it, like other articles on the deceased do. It was removed in this edit. Hello32020 ( talk) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please turn down the protection on this page. If we don't get the facts to people soon they might get angry. I am not saying to turn off protection, just turn it to silver and get a big team of admins to delete spam and vandalism.
Coolgyingman ( talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"These shows may now be canceled due to Jackson's death."
Gee, ya think? What genius came with this one? Revmagpie ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is being seen as a test case for Wikipedia and how it handles data. Don't panic and get all abusive because you feel time pressure. Let's please keep the respect going that is so much the binder of the encyclopedia. Yes, this is high profile and there is fast breaking news. No, it doesn't mean we need to start flinging rotten virtual veg at each other. This isn't a battle for power. Spanglej ( talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
1.400.000 visits yesterday! Please check the infobox, OboeCrack ( talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is just another example of some people taking fact checking a bit too far. Numerous TV news channels in the UK, at least, have mentioned Wikipedia's handling of Jackson's death. RIP MJ, etc.. -- Recipe For Hate ( talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And thank you whoever killed the, eh, great comment about Jackson "bein a pedo" or whatever it was. -- Recipe For Hate ( talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia was made as an editable encyclopedia so it could have many articles and it could be as up to date as possible, but with the article fully protected nobody can put the most up to date information. Put the protection at silver and moniter the page for spam and vandalism.
Coolgyingman ( talk) 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, please leave this page fully protected. It is an FA, there is not a whole lot more to be done to make this article better than it already is. An administrator can add the four or five sentences needed for his death information as they become available. The level of vandalism that would hit this article if protection is lifted would be outrageous, just a look at the history would demonstrate that. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with semiprotection now, but I agree with semiprotection as time go by. Let this article go fully protected for couple to several hours, then downgrade the protection to semi-protection indefentitely. RYAN 3000 ( talk) 02:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That is easy for an administrator to say.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The standard for uncontroversial admin edits to a fully-protected page is: "Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them."
Notice that there are two parts to this standard: should be proposed and carried out if they are uncontroversial. The fact that they are uncontroversial does not preclude the need to propose the edits.
Wouldn't it be better to be overly cautious than to create this appearance that admins are somehow more entitled to edit than non-admins? -- Elliskev 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point Coolgyingman ( talk) 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a bad edit? (This isn't a rhetorical question, it's just a lot to trawl through...) Evercat ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"A lot to trawl through" is exactly the point! 23 edits while fully protected, and not one even mentioned on the talk page. -- Elliskev 01:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"Not one mentioned on the talk page", Elliskev? The one I made was mentioned on the talk page. Evercat ( talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, too many to trawl through. This situation is a bit intolerable, though personally I'm not concerned about trivial edits, only significant ones, for some definition of significant. A brief glance through the edits shows many of them have been really quite trivial. But I earlier queried whether this full protection was called for... Evercat ( talk) 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The editnotice that shows up for administrators has the following quote from WP:PPOL: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." I can't speak for everyone that's been making edits while the article has been protected, but I've tried to make sure my edits (which are mainly wikignoming) are uncontroversial. If you have any specific edits that you feel were improperly made, you'll have to specifically point out examples. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Following the death of the King of Pop, fans gathered around the star of the other Michael Jackson, radio commentator. — Hiplibrarianship ( talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason the page was protected was because, since there were such large numbers of edits flooding in, and there are thousands to millions of page viewers, any vandalism or unsourced edits to the article would be viewed by all those thousands to millions of readers, and vandalism would be hard to trace or even revert because of edit conflicts due to all those edits to the article. (Speaking of which this paragraph I am writing will probably be some ways away from the bottom of this talk page because of other people posting comments and complaining about the protection which is why I am writing this blah blah blah - etc. etc. - if I am correct then I rest my case. :-) So there. That's all that can be said.
Oh, yes, another thing: absolutely NO votes on the protection, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
-[| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|] 01:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/entertainment/celebrity_news/dpg_michael_jackson_hospital_lwf_062509_2611501 Pontificake ( talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a source on MSNBC.com per news wire sources: Michael Jackson rushed to hospital conman33 ( . . .talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
He's dead.
Jacob Richardson (
talk) 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Also on TMZ Hill of Beans ( talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Fully protected, all done. PhilBroadway ( talk) 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a joke I was watching TV, he is really truly dead.
"The cause of death is reported to be cardiac arrest." I'm a doctor and this sentence is non-sensical: cardiac arrest simply means that your heart has stopped and is obviously true of any dead person. Cause of death implies a reason why somebody's heart stopped. As a side point cardiac arrest is different to heart attack (which some news sites seem to be confusing). Heart attack means myocardial infarction which is literally death of some of the heart muscle caused by not enough blood going through the coronary arteries. Heart attack implies nothing about whether the heart is still beating or not (although cardiac arrest is not uncommon after a heart attack). sodium
confirmed by BBC News and RAI News 24 (Italian state media).-- Xania talk 21:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Goodnight sweet crazy prince of pop
Reports of his death. Basket of Puppies 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This hasn't been confirmed yet. The only "source" of this information is TMZ. RAI is reporting him dead with TMZ as their source. BBC UK is not reporting him dead. Neither is MSNBC. Neither is CNN. I'm not saying the story is BS, but there hasn't been a secondary source of confirmation yet. Soccernamlak ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Despite a couple of headlines saying he's dead, no actual stories are claiming to know whether he's dead or not.
This is the original TMZ article which has been going around Twitter a lot seems to be the original source of the reports of his death -- Dolphonia ( talk) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This article also says dead, but it refs TMZ. KiTA ( talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN.com Ticker: "BREAKING NEWS: L.A. Times reports that Michael Jackson has died" KiTA ( talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Or has he just gone into hiding?
"Debra Opri, a former Jackson family attorney, confirmed that the legendary singer, 50, was rushed to the hospital Thursday afternoon, where he later died at 3:15 p.m. EDT after falling into a deep coma." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529103,00.html
-- Tarantulas ( talk) 23:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could the article be fully protected for a while, or we will be removing poorly thought out edits all night? Regret having to ask for this.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Reuters has just reported believed (my emphasis) dead. Full-protection until it's clear what's going on. Also taken the unusual step of semi-protecting this talkpage before it becomes a BLP nightmare (assuming the allegations aren't true). – iride scent 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The cited source for the cardiac arrest is pointing to the Rolling Stones band rather than Rolling Stone the magazine. #148. Tarc ( talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BBC News, Reuters and AP are NOT (at present) reporting the death of Michael Jackson at present, they are simply stating that TMZ is reporting his death. Please can we calm down, Wikipedia is an important website and we really don't need to precipitate further confusion with premature reports here. Nick ( talk) 21:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
until CNN reports his death, it's not true. TMZ is just a glorified Tabloid. Jru Gordon ( talk) 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Times and CBSNews are now reporting his death.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gK_BZYsLvb9-YlmofeU7Ye4OzVuQ
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/world/michael-jackson-dead-20090626-cyjb.html
These seem to be two reputable links. Especially the one that's not TMZ - a tabloid one that might just be trying to sell. I'd wait at least another half hour before writing anything official though.
Wow. I almost made a joke about WP:BLP not applying anymore. Then I realised, this is actually sad. :/ Lewis Collard! ( lol, internet) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
He is not dead, but in a coma. Don't change the article to dead until a very reliable reference is available. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I would wait till a press release comes out. What's the LA Times and AP's source, I wonder. We should hold out until we have a confirmed reputable source, and a press release would probably be best. Capgun2713 ( talk) 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Link is here: [6] - Nick talk 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, his death was confirmed. Rangond ( talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
it is also on msnbc and other major news sites now
I see the page is fully protected - apparently preemptively? That would be counter to policy... Evercat ( talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN reports he may be in a coma due to cardiac arrest. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
At all people: cool down, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a real-time portrait of the world. Let the facts be discernible, and then people will edit the arcticle accordingly
nihil (
talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Really? And from what year does your definition of "Encyclopedia" come from? Any reason why the fact that he's been declared dead isn't in and of itself noteworthy, whether it's true or not? I think Wikipedia is starting to turn into a bureaucratic shadow of what it was intended to be. Let the people edit. That's what this place is for. Bjquinn ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
How can you say it's NOT real-time? It appears to me as being SO! Edits are automatically posted and, unless challenged immediately, they show up in matter of seconds! Wouldn't you call that real-time... I think I would! NiteHacker ( talk) 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer truth over speed to be honest.... 78.16.106.3 ( talk) 03:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This page needs to be unlocked to the extent that you will allow his death to be noted. EnglishHornDude ( talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article could be semi-protected and vandalism dealt with as it occurs.-- Susan118 talk 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
According to local publications and law enforcement. http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_35630.aspx -- .: Alex :. 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed dead 17 minutes ago. TFBCT1 ( talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Updated. Ian¹³ /t 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that we should NOT update the article to show his death until an official statement is made, since Wikipedia should be focused more on accuracy rather than updating speedily with unverified claims User:CodingBucky
Fri 26 June. 9.07am EST. STILL not confirmed dead. If google results are clicked into, the second sentence of CNN, BBC and other reports state they do not confirm his death. ~encise
Is it really necessary to lock down the whole article? Semi Protect should be fine now that his death is confirmed. Aspensti ( talk) 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So only admins can be trusted and everyone else is presumed to be a vandal? Now I know how the anonymous IP editors feel...-- Susan118 talk 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Its stupid to assume that article is going to be vandalized just because the man died. Plus there are plenty of people babysitting the page now to insure that no off color edits are made.
Aspensti (
talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
it's somewhat justified to do so as there's a bunch of idiots out there whose sole purpose is to create accounts and vandalize articles. Pyromania153 ( talk) 02:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to throw a word of support to the admins: this page would become the messiest battleground of the decade if it weren't protected. And, here's something else to think of: anyone who can't survive a few days without editing one specific single page has a real problem....! FlaviaR ( talk) 04:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Whomever added citations 2 and 3 regarding Michael's death needs to update their retrieval dates, as I'm quite certain you didn't read them on June 25, 3909.
Also, in the Background box, it should be listed that he died in LA, California.
TX, Hcurtis ( talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we have "hospital" spelt correctly in the last sentence of the introduction please? At the moment it's "hostpital". Thanks. DBaK ( talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's official: CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson/index.html Marianolu ( talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC) It is now confirmed that he has died:
This is not a quote of TMZ - it is from official sources. --Time to update folks. That is what it is. -- Valyim ( talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/25/michael-jackson-dies-death-dead-cardiac-arrest/ Once things are clearer, this article should be edited. RIP mike 83.43.149.8 ( talk) 21:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)----
Sky News and BBC have confirmed his death
---They havent confirmed anything. They are going by what the TMZ website has said. --
Deathtrap3000 (
talk) 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Micheal Jackson's death is on the front page of the Drudge Report and is reported 'confirmed' by Fox News and KHNL Honolulu. Da Killa Wabbit ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
My local news here in Charleston, WV just said so, too. Sailorknightwing ( talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's official. CNN has confirmed that he has died. DAP566 ( talk 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It's just been broadcast on Sky News on TV and it's on their website too. Sky News
The BBC Confirm he's been taken to hospital but don't sat any more than that BBC article Cloudy ( talk) 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
So far, TMZ's the only one reporting his death. Sky News is repeating TMZ's report, while BBC, CNN, Reuters, etc., only report that he's been taken the hospital following his heart attack. There's been no independent report of his death. IMHO, TMZ's not a particularly credible news agency. I'd rather wait for word from someone who isn't just repeating their claim. - FeralDruid ( talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
He's had a heart attack, reported by LAT [8] Safety Cap ( talk) 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Jackson's legal representation should release an official statement through Reuters and the Press Association that will be picked up by the major news sources. Let's wait until that confirmation comes out from his people before updating the page. (aeropagitica) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Times confirms death. -- beefyt ( talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Even my local news has confirmed that Michael Jackson is dead too that means ABC, NBC, CBS as well will be reporting on this too but don't rush to edit this article take your time in doing so. -- Red Polar Bear Ranger ( Red Polar Bear Ranger)Louis Marinucci
Any reason why we can't update to say that it was REPORTED that he died? I mean, even if he's not dead this whole event will be worthy of including in the article later on anyway. Bjquinn ( talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed, LA Times reports death. CBS and CNN seeking independent confirmation (via live report). - FeralDruid ( talk) 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN says: Entertainer Michael Jackson has died after being taken to a hospital on Thursday after suffering cardiac arrest, according to multiple reports including the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press. CNN has not confirmed his death.
Exploding Boy (
talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
ABC's World News led with "Michael Jackson 1958-2009" and said he had died. Does anyone still doubt this?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
E! Online cites Joe Jackson; the Beeb has just confirmed Jackson's death.—22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (I mean Dah31 ( talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC))
{{ Edit protected}} Admin, please add the following {{Wikinews|Report: Singer, songwriter Michael Jackson dies}}. Should be in external links section then moved to section about death when that section is created. Thanks, Calebrw ( talk) 22:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope no one is planning to use any sources that quote TMZ, the National Enquirer of the internet. -- Susan118 talk 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The accessdate for both of the death references has been incorrectly set to the year 3909, and they should have a filled-in date as well. GreenReaper ( talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Admin, please also remove, Category:Living people, add Category:2009 Deaths; Correct infobox- birthdate- ((birthdate|1958|8|29)), ((dda|2009|6|25|1958|8|29)). The format is correct as written except use {{ }}, not (( )). Thank you. TFBCT1 ( talk) 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we please switch to the death date and age template in the infobox? Gage ( talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
"Michael Jackson's Reported Death Roils Wikipedia". Exploding Boy ( talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been bold and started Death of Michael Jackson. This is looking one big story. Francium12 ( talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This is "big" enough for it's own article. C'mon I have thousands of good edits, stop treating me like a vandal admins! :-) Francium12 ( talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of another admin unblocking the article I started. I need to run for admin one day! Francium12 ( talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The admin (
User:Golbez who deleted the article abused process. Peremptory deletion saying 'fork' is not a valid reason
[9]
It might mot be a useful article but there's no need to get all jumped-up and start deleting things out-of-process. What's wrong with people?
Michael Jackson's Reported Demise Roils Wikipedia. Exploding Boy ( talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the death template because there's no official statement of his death. Feel free to readd it should information change. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not safe. Wikipedia has to maintain neutrality. The LA Times article is reporting he died at 3:15, there would have been an official statement by now. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
BBC, Sky, CNN all confirming 100% now.. Dvmedis ( talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is currently being heavily edited because its subject has recently died. Information about their death and related events may change significantly and initial news reports may be
unreliable. The
most recent updates to this article
may not reflect the most current information. |
{{
editprotected}}
badmachine (
talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This template should have NEVER been removed. It has been confirmed by multiple sources including the Associated Press.
the author of the preceding comment can be found in the talk page history.
What are you talking about Ryan, Sephiroth storm? WIKIPEDIA IS WRONG FOR NOT ADDING THE INFORMATION!!! Not too long ago I would turn to Wikipedia if I wanted up-to-date information. Now you're too scare to add a Reports of death section or anything like that? Because you're too snobby to believe TMZ? This line of thinking is ruining Wikipedia. Tristanb ( talk) TMZ is not a reliable source. Other news sources either quoted TMZ or just reported it as a fact without quoting sources. It was perfectly reasonable to remove information 'confirming' his death from the article until there is a fully official press release or several independant confirmations from reputable, non-anonymous sources. Even AP report was just a rumor from an insider. It is better to update the page a few hours later than to report people as dead prematurely. Aigarius ( talk) 23:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The link to the article by The Australian should be removed as the only part about his death is where it reports that TMZ has said it, it is currently cite 4. I Grave Rob §talk♥ stalk§ 22:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article clearly shouldn't be locked. Yes, it is going to be a high traffic article, but that is irrelevant. You do not lock articles in response to "Oh, it MIGHT be vandalized". Indeed, it is discouraging to new people, who often come to Wikipedia BECAUSE they hear a news report and want to contribute, and it is bad for the encyclopedia as a whole. I'm sure those here can handle what vandalism may come, and it will allow the article to be improved. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The ignorant belief that he is not dead is simply wrong. Every major news outlet is confirming it. TMZ ISN'T THE ONLY ONE CONFIRMING IT. Please, get your facts right when you are trying to block progress. Ignorant thinking like that ruins Wikipedia, which used to be a good place for up-to-date information. Block it from users younger than 1 day to prevent this vandalism, but not for everyone else. -- Scouto2 ( talk) 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Put age under death, and not born. Jørgen88 ( talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
USAToday has confirmed the death. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
USA Today is simply referring the AP report. No statement has been made by either UCLA Hospital or His Lawyer.
The edit notice on this article is unneeded and out of line IMO. It assumes a false premise, that the page was protected due to a dispute. In fact, it was protected preemptively so that the page doesn't "get swamped." There is nothing wrong with sourced admin updates. Oren0 ( talk) 22:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Someone out to create a separate "Death" section, so in-coming information can go in there and people looking specifically for it know where to look. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The article needs {{Recent death|Jackson, Michael|date=June 2009}} at the top.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Typical Wikipedia. Something remotely controversial comes along, and the Admins wade in with full protection immediately. What ever happened to assuming good faith and letting the facts speak for themselves? 82.13.161.114 ( talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please update persondata.-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added the template. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Date of death is 2009. 62comets ( talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Shiggity ( talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You fully protect it because of WP:BLP problems, then use blogs as the only sources of his death. Good job.-- Otterathome ( talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to point out names, as every admin that edited and failing to notice the blog sources should have removed it anyway. For reference purposes and before they get lost in the surge of edits, here are the diffs of admins adding blogs as sources whilst the article was fully protected.
Its what CNN is saying. I think you should wait a little more, we are an encyclopedia not a news blog! Regarding such famous artist is expected to have lots of speculations! Khullah ( talk) 23:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
in under 1:00 almost everyone in the entire country (maybe the world) knows about this..
Every one on Wikipedia get to CNN they are going to release a statement soon.
"Jackson suffered a heart attack, according to father Joe Jackson, and never recovered." -- should be noted on main page?
source - [www.eonline.com/uberblog/b131173_michael_jackson_pops_thrilling_king.html] This seems to be a more reliable source to use on the main page where the references of his death is noted. It's already in the references but NOT in the article in the sentence of his death.
According to most all the sources, he was not breathing when he arrived at the hospital. -- if this is the case, this makes the main page incorrect and needs to be changed!
I think this is as official as you can get... do you think??? NiteHacker ( talk) 23:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
On Thursday 25th June 2009, around 12:26 at the age of 50, Michael Jackson was rushed to the UCLA Medical Center after he was found not breathing in his home, according to reports. He was subsequently reported dead after being in a coma and CPR was performed. The supposed cause of death was cardiac arrest. [1]
This confirms it. He's dead. I will update the wiki with the words above (being my own).Bahahs 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This sentence appears in the article. This wouldn't apply now considering the circumstances I take it so I believed this should be changed? -- Super Shy Guy Bros. Not shy? 23:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following sentence is contained in the article: "In late 2006, Jackson agreed to share joint custody of his first two children with ex-wife Debbie Rowe.[129]" However, the source provided states that they reached a confidential agreement; it doesn't say anything about them agreeing to joint custody. I'll look for a source, but I'm pretty sure that she has no contact, or any custody at all, of the two children. Gwyka ( talk) 03:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
What's up with all the peremptory deletions? There's a process to follow. Indefinitely protecting the page saying "inappropriate article" is frankly stupid given that there are other "Death Of" articles, such as Princess Diana, Kurt Cobain, Adolf Hitler, etc.
The article can now be created, now that the coroner has confirmed death. However, there is little information to make a new article. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about the recentism of Jackson's death can be found here. Please remain civil and do not complicate things. Zoo Fari 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"On June 25, 2009, he collapsed at his home in Los Angeles. After being taken to the hospital in a coma, Jackson was pronounced dead."
I was going to say something about it... it was posted for quite awhile but is NOT accurate! THANK YOU, to whomever, that removed that statement! It was NOT clear and still is unclear as to how he was found and whether they really revived him or not and so whether he was in a coma or not is really NOT known at this point. Several sources say he was found not breathing at his home or when help arrived... this part is not clear... and so the above statement may NOT be correct... especially the 'in a coma' and 'he collapsed'. As far as I know, there's NO definite statement from the father (or family) as to what happened or what state he was in or when he was actually dead... although, it's really not official until you are checked by a professional or taken to the hospital.
A Death section should be added, but it's TOO early to add, and facts stated there (with reliable sources)... but only after the traffic dies down and the facts become known and verified. IE Ed McMahon is a good example and it seems to be correct to me! If people want the facts (if reliable?) can 'google' them and find it! Just letting people post information indiscriminately is leading to false information being posted over and over and needlessly! NiteHacker ( talk) 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that this sentence, in the lead, is important enough to require an inline cite. Before I tag it, may I have comments, please? TerriersFan ( talk) 02:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:LEADCITE says nothing about cites in the lede being "exceptional"... i pulled 4 featured articles from the music section, Celine Dion, [Ellis Paul]], The Supremes and Gwen Stefani... they all have citations in the lead.
How about a section on the plastic surgery he underwent. Very significant yet it appears that the author of this article has left it out. Bias?
Shouldn't MJ be named in a Jehovah's Witness category? Consider, e.g., either Category:American Jehovah's Witnesses or Category:Former Jehovah's Witnesses. Rammer ( talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{edit protected}}
Pls add to Death section:
MickMacNee ( talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Admins: In the Infobox, there should not be brackets around these years — `CRAZY`(lN)`SANE` 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be mentioned in the death section of this article the impact of his passing among fans as the outpouring of grief is rivaled only by the deaths of Elvis Presley and John Lennon as shown by news stories such as at [14]. In Detroit, fans gathered at the old Motown HQ Hitsville U.S.A. (now the Motown Museum) to hold vigil as it was there that Jackson began his career as found at [15]. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
For God's sake.. why do we need complete edit protection?? I WAS going to add into the article the following citation.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm (BBC Confirms).. Dvmedis ( talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You guys happy now? -- 142.110.227.163 ( talk) 23:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No. Sephiroth storm ( talk) 23:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
CNN is reporting that the Jackson family lawyer has said that he had been using (and possibly abusing) perscription drugs. They are also saying that he collapsed, rather than being found unconscious (idk what the main article says). Jcsavestheday ( talk) 00:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
LA Coroner on the phone on BBC World News live on air confirmed the death and said that he was proclaimed dead at 14:26 California time, twis was transmitted 3 minutes ago. Aigarius ( talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There will be a news conference held by the UCLA hospital. CNN will be carrying this news conference, and it should hopefully give us more concrete details as to what happened. 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Jcsavestheday ( talk) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Locking out everyone but Admins is overkill at this point.--
MahaPanta (
talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Today, june 25, 2009, Michael Jackson has died. He was taken to the UCLA medical center.
more info: LOS ANGELES – Michael Jackson, the "King of Pop" who reigned over the music world like no other, died Thursday as he prepared for a comeback bid to vanquish nightmare years of sexual scandal and financial calamity. He was 50.
Jackson died at UCLA Medical Center after being stricken at his rented home in Holmby Hills. Paramedics tried to resuscitate him at his home for nearly three-quarters of an hour, then rushed him to the hospital, where doctors continued to work on him.
"It is believed he suffered cardiac arrest in his home. However, the cause of his death is unknown until results of the autopsy are known," his brother Jermaine said. Police said they were investigating, standard procedure in high-profile cases.
Jackson's death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music's premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.
His 1982 album "Thriller" — which included the blockbuster hits "Beat It," "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" — is the best-selling album of all time, with an estimated 50 million copies sold worldwide.
At the time of his death, Jackson was rehearsing hard for what was to be his greatest comeback: He was scheduled for an unprecedented 50 shows at a London arena, with the first set for July 13.
As word of his death spread, MTV switched its programming to play videos from Jackson's heyday. Radio stations began playing marathons of his hits. Hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital. In New York's Times Square, a low groan went up in the crowd when a screen flashed that Jackson had died, and people began relaying the news to friends by cell phone.
link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_en_mu/us_obit_michael_jackson
i do not think the page should be fully protected administrators have enough on their hands. also if you keep it protect for now i will remove template about a recent deth. Parker1297 ( talk) 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Should Category:Deaths from myocardial infarction be added to the article, or are we better off waiting? Cooltrainer Hugh ( talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There are two different parts going on in his article talking about his death. Can any sensible admin please clear this up. user:Stevencho
The inline citations in the lead are not required as there information is referenced later on in the article. This is a basic principle of writing the lead for a Wikipedia article and, until he died, this article maintained that principle. Please remove those inline citations from the lead. Jolly Ω Janner 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove death section per wikipedia (format/precedence) on the deceased. It should above the legacy section as well. Valoem talk 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Broken template. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please fix the info box. Some admin protected the page AGAIN, and now the info box is distorted.-- Jojhutton ( talk) 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Someone put a link to the Wikinews page on his death? Just a suggestion. -- Oldlaptop321 ( talk· contribs) 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I fully protected this article due to the extreme traffic and three instances of vandalism in the latest minutes, added to several infobox screw ups and previous vandalism. In those circumstances, this cannot be tolerated. This article received almost 1 million hits per hour recently according to this, any vandalism or BLP violations will be seen by thousands of persons. Cenarium ( talk) 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't a pre-emptive full protection. The article is highly visible and suffered from various disruptive edits that were hard to find and even worse to try to revert due to edit conflicts. Ignoring this rule seems like the best option at this point. — Σ xplicit 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ignore all rules is a policy. Perhaps you can explain how one shouldn't ignore a policy that allows one to ignore other policies. — Σ xplicit 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Haven't you cared to check the history, and my three rollbacks in the latest seven minutes prior to protection ? Vandalism by three autoconfirmed users: [16], [17], [18]. Cenarium ( talk) 01:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Full protection is completely unnecessary and damages the article and th project. Vandalccounts can easily be blocked, admins who continue to edit should be desysopped as admins do not have editing privileges. This is clearly a disruptive protection, shame on whoever did it. Thanks,
SqueakBox
talk 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It is astonishing just how ignorant people have become. A person dies, and they take it as a sigh to vandalize and tabliodize the article. What ever became of courtesy and common sense? I sometimes wish it were permited to erase such worthless individuals from existance.
I recall a saying from when I was young that really should be followed and heeded
DO NOT SPEAK ILL OF THE DEAD.... LEST YOU JOIN THEM.
TSAinc (
talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
I agree with protecting the page: the edits were coming in so fast that it made the servers extremely slow and one time even stopped working, also when vandalism would occur it was hard to trace it etc. etc. Anyways, the image in the infobox is streched above it's resolution, is there a way to reduce it's size to the image's resolution? Streched images are harder to see detail in. Thanks. [| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|] 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Check out all the admins and other high-ups who viciously erased the contributions of other people, eager to help, because the admin personally hadn't been informed of the death. As if reality somehow didn't matter unless it was first approved by them? All of them were totally wrong. Not wrong about some pedophile rockstar being alive or not, I don't really care about that.
These editors are wrong in that they completely erased someone elses probably hand typed contributions - perhaps even someone else who isn't totally familiar with Wiki but bothered to learn some of the basics. They took facts presented by someone else looking to help, and destroyed them without bothering to verify that the contribution was actually an error. Whoops - you can use today's history page for the edits on this article to build up a nice list of wiki admins who are entirely too eager to destroy someone else's work.
That really sucks, I think. These people should be called out on their actions publicly, so that perhaps they put more thought into them next time. Zaphraud ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Only admin can now edit this page, so can an admin member please delete the last sentence on the '2008–2009: Milestones, real estate, planned return to live performance' section as obviously the shows are not going to happen. RM-Taylor 01:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think he means the sentence at the end of the section, viz "These shows may now be canceled due to Jackson's death." which does seem a bit obvious. Evercat ( talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
People keep on messing with the infobox and I have had to fix it 3 times. I would appreciate it if this would stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderson9 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus has been reached, somewhat, that it was incorrect to fully protect the article. ( here) Please cite your reasons for fully protecting, otherwise, remove the protection please. -- Blurpeace ( talk) 00:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Although the death shouldn't be overly emphasized in the lead of the article on Michael Jackson, it should have at least one sentence talking about it, like other articles on the deceased do. It was removed in this edit. Hello32020 ( talk) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Please turn down the protection on this page. If we don't get the facts to people soon they might get angry. I am not saying to turn off protection, just turn it to silver and get a big team of admins to delete spam and vandalism.
Coolgyingman ( talk) 00:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"These shows may now be canceled due to Jackson's death."
Gee, ya think? What genius came with this one? Revmagpie ( talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is being seen as a test case for Wikipedia and how it handles data. Don't panic and get all abusive because you feel time pressure. Let's please keep the respect going that is so much the binder of the encyclopedia. Yes, this is high profile and there is fast breaking news. No, it doesn't mean we need to start flinging rotten virtual veg at each other. This isn't a battle for power. Spanglej ( talk) 01:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
1.400.000 visits yesterday! Please check the infobox, OboeCrack ( talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is just another example of some people taking fact checking a bit too far. Numerous TV news channels in the UK, at least, have mentioned Wikipedia's handling of Jackson's death. RIP MJ, etc.. -- Recipe For Hate ( talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
And thank you whoever killed the, eh, great comment about Jackson "bein a pedo" or whatever it was. -- Recipe For Hate ( talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia was made as an editable encyclopedia so it could have many articles and it could be as up to date as possible, but with the article fully protected nobody can put the most up to date information. Put the protection at silver and moniter the page for spam and vandalism.
Coolgyingman ( talk) 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, please leave this page fully protected. It is an FA, there is not a whole lot more to be done to make this article better than it already is. An administrator can add the four or five sentences needed for his death information as they become available. The level of vandalism that would hit this article if protection is lifted would be outrageous, just a look at the history would demonstrate that. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with semiprotection now, but I agree with semiprotection as time go by. Let this article go fully protected for couple to several hours, then downgrade the protection to semi-protection indefentitely. RYAN 3000 ( talk) 02:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That is easy for an administrator to say.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The standard for uncontroversial admin edits to a fully-protected page is: "Changes to a protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them."
Notice that there are two parts to this standard: should be proposed and carried out if they are uncontroversial. The fact that they are uncontroversial does not preclude the need to propose the edits.
Wouldn't it be better to be overly cautious than to create this appearance that admins are somehow more entitled to edit than non-admins? -- Elliskev 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point Coolgyingman ( talk) 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a bad edit? (This isn't a rhetorical question, it's just a lot to trawl through...) Evercat ( talk) 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"A lot to trawl through" is exactly the point! 23 edits while fully protected, and not one even mentioned on the talk page. -- Elliskev 01:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"Not one mentioned on the talk page", Elliskev? The one I made was mentioned on the talk page. Evercat ( talk) 01:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, too many to trawl through. This situation is a bit intolerable, though personally I'm not concerned about trivial edits, only significant ones, for some definition of significant. A brief glance through the edits shows many of them have been really quite trivial. But I earlier queried whether this full protection was called for... Evercat ( talk) 01:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The editnotice that shows up for administrators has the following quote from WP:PPOL: "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus." I can't speak for everyone that's been making edits while the article has been protected, but I've tried to make sure my edits (which are mainly wikignoming) are uncontroversial. If you have any specific edits that you feel were improperly made, you'll have to specifically point out examples. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Following the death of the King of Pop, fans gathered around the star of the other Michael Jackson, radio commentator. — Hiplibrarianship ( talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The reason the page was protected was because, since there were such large numbers of edits flooding in, and there are thousands to millions of page viewers, any vandalism or unsourced edits to the article would be viewed by all those thousands to millions of readers, and vandalism would be hard to trace or even revert because of edit conflicts due to all those edits to the article. (Speaking of which this paragraph I am writing will probably be some ways away from the bottom of this talk page because of other people posting comments and complaining about the protection which is why I am writing this blah blah blah - etc. etc. - if I am correct then I rest my case. :-) So there. That's all that can be said.
Oh, yes, another thing: absolutely NO votes on the protection, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
-[| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|] 01:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)