Talk:Michael Jackson/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Cardiac Arrest?

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/entertainment/celebrity_news/dpg_michael_jackson_hospital_lwf_062509_2611501 Pontificake (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Several reports on Google News, all based on the TMZ story. It can wait until a more reliable source reports it. Rodhullandemu 21:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's on the BBC website [1], but still no details.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All that's on the BBC is a noncommittal "The reason for his admission is not clear. More to follow." which seems to be the Reliable Source line at the moment. Wait and see what's said; it could be something as simple as a bruised knee and the media have misinterpreted seeing him on a stretcher. It would hardly be the first time. – iridescent 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This should not be included until Jackson speaks, this was started by TMZ after all, not known for telling the truth when it comes to Jackson. — Please comment R² 21:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

sky news is reporting that police in LA have confirmed that jackson has been taken to hospital. it's real folks.

The cardiac arrest is a fact. It was just reported in the Situation Room (disambiguation).--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this fact will be clarified by Jackson in due course. But given the medias history of writing large quantities of shit about him every day, we should indeed wait. — Please comment R² 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• [2] - Denimadept (talk) 21:34, 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)

• LA Times [3] Hello32020 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, this has been started by TMZ, other media are just reporting the TMZ story, let's just be patient. — Please comment R² 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not go crazy about rushing headlong when the sources themselves are still doing so. Facts are scarce and rumour is rife. WP:BLP requires us to be careful with this sort of thing, and if necessary, I'm prepared to enforce it. Meanwhile, just the facts, please, and thank you all for bringing it up here beforehand. Rodhullandemu 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that this must wait for an official Michael Jackson press release is patently absurd. Multiple reliable sources are reporting this, so it can and should go in now. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• [4]: Local media stating that LA Fire Department has confirmed this. Hello32020 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson is dead.

he's dead. check out reteurs.

I'm looking at five news sites right now, including Reuters (and Fox News), and I'm seeing nothing about him being dead. Hospital, but not dead. I hate to use a 4chanism, but link or it didn't happen. 173.58.146.209 (talk) 21:52, 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.

Things are still unclear.. CNN is reporting that his is still alive. We should wait for an official statement from the Jackson Family. Vasant56 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say R.I.P. Michael Jackson he has influenced so many artists in so many genera. This is unreal and just plan shocking.Mcelite (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"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

he's dead

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)

Okay, as an update, LA Times has confirmed TMZ's initial report that Michael was not breathing when the paramedics arrived and had to perform CPR. No further word on his condition. Soccernamlak (talk) 22:02, 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)

Article Lock

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)

Do you remember what happened when Anna-Nicole Smith died? I spent nearly a day (with breaks of course) reverting edits on that page. I'd rather have this page locked entirely. 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC has not, in fact, reported his death. --Aqwis (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think it noteworthy to say in this article that various news sources are reporting his death? Carlos_X (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

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). – iridescent 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

just wandered in bleary eyed following to see what was happening on wiki - it's the frontpage of smh.com.au for what that's worth. My view would be that given the no. of sources mentioned above a brief, neutral reference to these reports would be appropraite in the lead. Maybe a sensitive, smart admin could give it a go? Privatemusings (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All reports of such are being disseminated from TMZ. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

edit protection

{{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)

Done. --- RockMFR 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick request

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)

Apparently, these guys here have never heard of HIPAA. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN, MSNBC, even FOX is still reporting him as being in treatment. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should make sure we don't jump the gun. Eric Wester (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 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.

Michael Jackson died.

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.

• Live CNN feed as well as all other News stations from California (I'm living here in the Los Angeles area) say he is currently hospitalized as UCLA medical center and his condition is "unknown". The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• LA Times now reporting death 1

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)

BBC World News just reported that the L. A. Times is reporting that Mr. Jackson was pronounced dead by doctors at 3.15 this afternoon, about five minutes ago.—Dah31 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Local news channels are now confirming death. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to the L.A. Times report.[5] --Allen3 ^talk 22:29, 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)

LA Times reports death

Link is here: [6] -Nick^talk 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(as reported by city and law enforcement officials). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 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

Preemptive full protection?

I see the page is fully protected - apparently preemptively? That would be counter to policy... Evercat (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say WP:IAR easily applies. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates

CNN reports he may be in a coma due to cardiac arrest. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN has now heard from the L.A. Times that he's died. --Joshmaul (talk) 22:27, 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)

He will be back

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)

Hell No. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit history of Anna-Nicole Smith and look what happened when the page was knocked down to just semi-protection. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense; accurate information should be written into the article, with appropriate sourcing. Articles shouldn't be protected "pre-emptively" just 'cause there might be vandalism. In such case, *all* articles should be thus protected, since in theory any article can be vandalised. --HidariMigi (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between vandalism and excess vandalism. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:32, 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)

As we see, that worked out really well. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed dead

According to local publications and law enforcement. http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_35630.aspx --.:Alex:. 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/06/michael_jackson_dead_at_50_tmz.htmlHereFord 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

NBC News confirmed two minutes ago on-air: [7] --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed numerous places, now. Please update. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait for confirmation from BBC and CNN. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed dead 17 minutes ago.TFBCT1 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead at 3:15PM PST, 6:15PM EST. Gage (talk) 22:31, 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

Total Article Lock Down Necessary?

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)

Please, no. I do not want to clean false edits and spam. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think the page will get out of control even with established users.--Abusing (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I woder how long is long enough?Aspensti (talk) 22:49, 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)

That's not an assumption, that's the status quo of Wikipedia. Considering it was lowered to semi-protection and still vandalised speaks loudly to what I was saying would happen. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:10, 26 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)

Please update citations 2 and 3

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)

2008? Come on. If Admins are locking everyone out, then get it right...at least!

22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

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)

Fixed. AngelOfSadness talk 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has just died, apparently

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:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/pop-star-michael-jackson-was-rushed-to-a-hospital-this-afternoon-by-los-angeles-fire-department-paramedics--capt-steve-ruda.html

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)

Not a heart attack, cardiac arrest. They are not one in the same. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:11, 26 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)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/pop-star-michael-jackson-was-rushed-to-a-hospital-this-afternoon-by-los-angeles-fire-department-paramedics--capt-steve-ruda.html

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}}

{{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)

Currently the article does cite TMZ as a source, but the information is collaborated by the LA Times and a local Fox affiliate TV station. Calebrw (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know TMZ, but I trust the BBC, and they say that TMZ have been reliable for this kind of story in the past.KTo288 (talk) 22:47, 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)

Can someone change the citations to AP/Reuters/BBC? They'd be the highest quality sources available, and he deserves that much. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1. There is a link to the Wikinews article.
2. I cannot find any dates of 3909 in the article or citations.
3. Categories are correct
4. Birth/Death dates are correct
5. I'm pretty sure I saw a reference to Reuters.
6. When making edit requests, please make each request in a separate section as it's really really hard to tell what is wanted when it's all scrambled up like this. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Death date and age template

Could we please switch to the death date and age template in the infobox? Gage (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget about the location of death, and the correct dash symbol for the (August 1958 [–] June 25, 2009). Tinton5 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And remove Category:Living people, too, please.--Joshua Issac (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

and now the inevitable Wikipedia-related article

"Michael Jackson's Reported Death Roils Wikipedia". Exploding Boy (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Link doesn't work? --Susan118 ^talk 22:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it must be getting overloaded. It doesn't work reliably for me either, but it is there. It says, partly, "As news organizations reported Michael Jackson's hospitalization on Thursday afternoon, Wikipedia editors were wrestling with the problem of whether to allow an unverified report of the singer's death to appear on the online encyclopedia . . . Some Wikipedians repeatedly deleted references to Jackson's alleged demise, saying in separate comments that "This is not yet verified," "He's not dead," "Premature edits," and "ONCE AGAIN, HE IS NOT DEAD, JUST STOP." But they were too slow for the legions of Wikipedia users who descended on the site and repeatedly modified the entry about the pop star. The typical edit was to insert today as the date of Jackson's demise. Others were more subtle; one used the word "was" instead of "is," while another edit called "Invincible" his "last studio album." By around 6:15 pm ET, Wikipedia appeared to be temporarily overloaded. The site reported the error: "Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.... Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.6.24))" Exploding Boy (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Susan118 ^talk 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bold

I have been bold and started Death of Michael Jackson. This is looking one big story. Francium12 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that we merge it into Michael Jackson and start a new section called "Death", but I see that it has been deleted. Clem (talk) 22:49, 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)

There isn't nearly enough information yet to write an article. --Susan118 ^talk 22:58, 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?

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a separate Death of Micheal Jackson article. None. Zero. The only reason such articles exist is when the death itself is indepdently noteworthy, which this is, so far, definitely not. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the death of Michael Jackson is probably on par with the death of Elvis Presley. I can't find a "Death of Elvis Presley" article, so it seems reasonable that there's probably not going to be the need for a "Death of Michael Jackson" article. Unless there turns out to be a lot more controversy than it currently appears there will be, a "Death" section on the main Michael Jackson page should suffice. Caben42 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And the inevitable article about Wikipedia

Michael Jackson's Reported Demise Roils Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link - I guess we are not very roiled. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate post, sorry. See above for excerpts. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of death template

I've removed the death template because there's no official statement of his death. Feel free to readd it should information change. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by BBC. I'd say it's safe. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:47, 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)

Seems pretty darn safe to me. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC is not confirming it. BBC is saying "likely" as a result of LA times article and now AP. It's also reporting reports of coma too. Suggest the template is change to "this article is about someone how may have recently died. Still doubt till official confirmation. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt this template be there:

{{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.}

please dont mangle my comments. badmachine (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Citation Removal

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)

Article shouldn't be locked

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)

I think Mr. Jackson was famous enough to reasonablly guess that there are a LOT of people currently viewing this artice. As such, the hassle of reversing every act of vandalism today would greatly outweigh any positive edits that might, possibly occur.

Nope. Not an excuse. The article should not be locked. And admins ESPECIALLY should not be editing the article while it is under this level of protection. This is completely unacceptable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Titanium Dragon on this. --Susan118 ^talk 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's locked not only to stop vandalism but also to stop line after line of speculation, which is really about all you'd normally see added at this point. What would probably be more discouraging to new people coming would not be "Oh I just came to this site and I can't edit!" but "Why does it say, 'Michael Jackson died when he attempted to eat a Pez Dispenser.'?" --Breshkovsky (talk) 23:14, 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)

I support the total lock down. Very high traffic articles are targets for vandalism and changes by lots of people who have not looked at Wikipedia before, let alone edited. Over emotionality makes people write odd things. Just look at the furore on this discussion page. KEEP THE DISCUSSION CIVIL! This is not a place to hurl abuse at others Spanglej (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Age under death

Put age under death, and not born. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, its done. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

USAToday

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.

Edit notice?

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)

Agreed. The lack of controversial editing thus far suggests that this notice is unwarranted, and unlike mass vandalism, we shouldn't assume that abusive editing amongst admins is just going to break out. Nufy8 (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Death" section

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)

This article does not need full protection, it needs semi protection and blocking of any vandal accounts. There simply is no acceptable reason either to protect or for admins to continue editing while it is protected. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Its an admins world today.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, im lagging out due to page accesses. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, based on past examples of articles when the subject dies, it is entirely necessary. I'm not an admin and I cannot edit, but I fully support these actions, especially after what happened with Anna-Nicole Smith. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't understand Wikipedia. Please read our mission and the purpose of this website, as well as previous articles which have come up in the news, as well as the protection policy, ect. If you think this is okay, then you don't understand the policies of Wikipedia. We do everything we can to NOT lock articles, because if they're heavily trafficked they can help bring in new contributers to the project. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I do understand Wikipedia and if they're admins, then its obvious they understand wikipedia else they would not have been given their conditions. As for your "policy" policing, I've got a policy for you: WP:IAR and WP:DGAF. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:07, 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)

Well, some people don't understand Wikipedia, including some admins, apparently. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What did you expect? Admins are chosen for their judgement and experience. Their decisions are open to review, and more so than yours. In my case, having seen what normally happens when major personalities, die, or are rumoured to have died, on many occasions, I see no reason to let the world and his wife pile in with vaguely-sourced information, and personal opinions. The protection was, in my view, and given Jackson's persona, entirely correct. Sorry, but if you don't subscribe to some standards of editing, er, don't edit here. End of. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[10] <-- That happened ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I currently would agree that it should be semi-protected and not full-protected - there's no reason why registered editors should be excluded. But I've never involved myself in this kind of situation before, so I'd like to hear a justification for full protection based upon previous similar situations... Antony-22 (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's semi-protected now. Shiggity (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unleash the fury. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"What ever happened..."??? People started messing things up when they realized what was possible. I think it's good that this page is locked, and that the story of his death will come together through accurate means. I should know -- I came to this page to vandalize it. Dancouvert (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And likewise, they unlocked the page to merely semi-protection and we see what happened. And now it is back to where it should be, at full protection. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Persondata

Please update persondata.--Joshua Issac (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ehhhh

Recent deaths

I've added the template. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Change date of death

Date of death is 2009. 62comets (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected now.

Shiggity (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; I moved the protection down because I currently see no policy reason for full protection. TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Coolness. Shiggity (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done admins

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)

Yeah, seriously, WTF? -- samj _in^out 23:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fucking pathetic. Excuse my language, but the admins block regular users from editing and can't even source his death properly? Pathetic — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit surprise. Reuters and CNN write 'reports'. They have not independently verified his death. In my opinion, until reliable news organisations write 'he's dead', and not 'reports say he's dead', he isn't dead. He's just 'reported' dead. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nice going there. Might as well have left the article unprotected if it was going to end up like that. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:15, 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.

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13].--Otterathome (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Now fully protected again with two blog sources related to his death still in article, well done.--Otterathome (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." E! may not strictly fall under this because it's not a newspaper, but the LA Times does. Nufy8 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

COMA, not death

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)

Must be an old page. Cnn Says deat. So does the AP, NY Times, BBC, and LA Times.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Channel 11, Fox news in Los Angeles, is currently streaming live on tmz.com talking about the thousands of people who have gone to the hospital and his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame after the reports of his death, which they are confirming. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are other news outlets than CNN such as MSNBC, Reuters, AP, LA Times, FOX, etc. and they're all reporting him as being dead. CNN is just awaiting independent confirmation but are not discounting the probability. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's on TV, not a page. I'm hearing them now, reporter just said "we are outside waiting for a announcement to wheter he is dead or not". I also read that people are sending each other text messages over the cellphones. It's becoming higly rumorous. Will it make such a difference if we change the page only tomorrow???? Khullah (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

in under 1:00 almost everyone in the entire country (maybe the world) knows about this..

With the advent of the internet and how FAST the media is nowadays... it's probably a lot less than that! I am guessing probably between 15-30 mins or even less... and MOST of the world knows by then! NiteHacker (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

AP have reports now

• http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBIT_MICHAEL_JACKSON?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Every one on Wikipedia get to CNN they are going to release a statement soon.

Confirmation from father of his death

"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)

confirmed death

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.

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)

How can you be in a coma and not breathing... is this possible? Most sources say he was found not breathing when they arrived at his home.

I don't know if it really matters but there needs to be further confirmation as to what state he was in and what happened from his home until he was taken to the hospital and at what point was he confirmed dead? Were they able to revive him on the way to the hospital... so was CPR successful for whatever period of time he was revived... if he was? It's TOO early to say what happened or how it happened and what the chain of events were, etc. TOO many sources and, so far, nothing is really reliable! ALL his father said, supposedly, was that he suffered a heart attack and never recovered (see ref 2 on main page)... after that, there's NO other reliable source or sources... is there?

This does NOT validate the statement or the references used on the main page so it should be changed until there are more reliable sources! NiteHacker (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jackson still owns an unknown stake in the property"

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)

Also the sentence "The couple divorced in 1999, with Rowe giving full custody rights of the children to Jackson; they still remain friends." --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 23:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are they sourced? If so, do the sources cited support the statements? If not, remove all or a portion of the statements. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of tense. Just change it to reflect the fact that he's no longer alive. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:35, 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)

Death of Michael Jackson article

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.

Link to a discussion ,which is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article entitled "Death of Michael Jackson"Stadt (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yep BBC reports LA Coronar now confirms death. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8119993.stm --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Diana and Hitler had controversial deaths with conspiracy theories and what not. What makes Jackson's death notorious enough to merit its own article, as opposed to a "Death" section in his article instead? I don't think we even have enough information at this time to make any such article little more than a stub. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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 for death

Discussion about the recentism of Jackson's death can be found here. Please remain civil and do not complicate things. ZooFari 01:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement

"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)

You forgot to include the word "reportedly"; the source reported that's what happened. Hence "reportedly. wadester16 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cited as one of the world's most famous men,"

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)

Huh/ don't tag this while the article is fully protected please. Cenarium (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time to remove the full protection then.--MahaPanta (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove it per WP:POV. Opinions like these should be referenced accordingly to the one citing him. ZooFari 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the WP:LEAD, citations are, barring exceptional cases, not required if they are given in the rest of the article; and there are in Michael_Jackson#Legacy_and_influence. Cites in the lead are exceptional and should be strongly justified if added. For now, I don't see such discussion and editorial consensus, so keep as is. Cenarium (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced in the article body, read WP:LEAD. — Please comment R² 02:41, 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.

Plastic Surgery?!

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?

Read the article; information about his plastic surgeries is there right under the 1986–1990: Tabloids, appearance, Bad, autobiography and films section. At the top of that section, it even links to the article Michael Jackson's health and appearance. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I say its not verifiable enough; while much of it is readily observable, the true nature of the surgeries Mr. Jackson underwent would be privileged information, making a section of sorts too speculative to be complete. Hrhadam (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points, Hrhadam. But as I pointed out, we also have the article titled Michael Jackson's health and appearance. That article pretty much states it as fact that he has had plastic surgeries. And due to already having an article about his plastic surgeries, I am not seeing why we need to separate the information in this article about his plastic surgeries into its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness?

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)

Yes he should be in one of those, but there is still debate as to which.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit protected}}

Pls add to Death section:

1. After he collapsed, Jackson's personal physician, who was with him at the time, attempted to resuscitate him. - Jermaine Jackson
2. Resuscitation efforts continued both en route to the UCLA medical centre, and after arrival at approximately 1:14 p.m, for a further hour. - Jermaine Jackson
3. The case was transferred to the Los Angeles coroner for investigation as there was no doctor in attendance to sign the death certificate - Lt Fred Corrall, coroner's investigations unit

• Source (page 1 for edits 1 and 2, page 2 for edit 3)

MickMacNee (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(1967-2009)

Admins: In the Infobox, there should not be brackets around these years — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Impact of Jackson's death

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)

Complete edit protection

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)

His death is being placed on many other BLP-related articles in the form of vandalism. We're getting clobbered out there, and it's not even Michael Jackson-related! MuZemike 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Wadester apparently locked the article, then made several edits (along with a few other admins) while UNDER TOTAL PROTECTION. That's VERY bad behavior. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that claim thank you. I was consolidating references, cleaning up prose, and clarifying errors in the reporting. Edit conflicts plagued every effort I made. I think you'll live. wadester16 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your actions entirely. The spam is ridiculous as were the sheer number of edits causing more and more confusion. It was so terrible, grammatical errors and spelling errors were popping up left and right. I gave up trying to correct them because at every attempt, 10 more edits had been made in between. At least now the article will hopefully be properly managed. What's worse is that I said (look above) that this would happen. We saw it with the Anna Nicole Smith article. But at least I could edit that article. This time around, I couldn't even do that, lol. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CNN confirms

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)

Do Not Panic

{{editprotected}} Locking out everyone but Admins is overkill at this point.--MahaPanta (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently not protected; only semi-protected. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the history, it was fully protected at 23:48 when I posted that. Even after I started this section, I could not edit the article because I'm not an Admin. Thankfully, not too long after I posted that, an Admin downgraded the lock to semi-protected.--MahaPanta (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It was completely protected several times earlier. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:05, 26 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

Protected

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)

It was confirmed at least an hour and a half ago, and the known facts are already in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Category

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)

Better off waiting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially given a number of sources are saying the cause of death is unclear. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are there two death sections?

There are two different parts going on in his article talking about his death. Can any sensible admin please clear this up. user:Stevencho

Be bold and merge them yourself. It has nothing to do with admins. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a slue of edit conflicts, so someone may have added a second without realizing that someone else may have just added one. --Jojhutton (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why bother??? TOO many people posting and if registered users and even un-registered users are allowed to post, then the Admins hands are tied! There should be a temporary lock (only Admin access) and wait til the traffic dies down and then clean up and re-open to posting again and clean up again in a few weeks. BTW, there are a slew of them that are related to his death! NiteHacker (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone doesn't understand Wikipedia. The entire point of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; locking is done as a last resort, not as a preemtive measure. Thirdly, a locked article CANNOT be edited by admins; to do so is against policy. Fourth, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to lock it down. Yes, there will be edit conflicts; it is utterly irrelevant. It will happen on any heavily trafficked article. In reality, it is a good thing, because it means a lot of people are interested in editing the article. There isn't any vandalism (or if there is, it isn't showing up because it is being reverted so quickly) so there is no reason to lock down the article. A lot of good edits are being made, and minor improvements are occurring throughout the article due to the greater attention paid to him today. I fixed some prose, as well as some tenses, and other users have been making similar improvements due to their mere presence. Locking the article would mean those improvements wouldn't take place. Please read about us and our raison d'etre, and then you'll understand more about how things work around here. See, those improvements to other parts of the article? Those are a GOOD thing, and precisely why we shouldn't lock articles preemtively. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's factually incorrect. Admins can edit a fully protected article. It annoys me that there is now a death section, written completely independently from the other references to his death, but it's too difficult (overcome by edit conflicts) to fix it. Edit conflicts can be a negative thing, leading users to give up. Think about the other viewpoints, too. wadester16 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

They should leave it unlocked and let it turn into a free-for-all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand and know all that... it just seems that in situations like this, it just creates more clean-up work to be done at some point. It doesn't make sense to allow this, in my opinion. Just lock it for a few hours til it dies down makes more sense to me... but, again, that's my opinion but, I guess, you're saying that would go against Wikipedia's policies... well, maybe that should be re-considered for situations like this? It's a free-for-mess right now and it is HARD to submit something because of the Edit Conflicts going on right now! I have to try 2-3 times to post something which, as stated, would confuse some users and make other users give up! NiteHacker (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inline citations

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)

I agree, but given the instability of the article, there's no point addressing it until the furor dies down. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just move the inline citations to the bit in the infobox that states the date of his death. Jolly Ω Janner 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't do anything now, seeing as the article's protected. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove death section

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)

why not, when I looked at it at one time the was a death section, another in Legacy, another in his career section, not to mention in the intro. I think anyone would've got the messageMoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He'll die a thousand deaths before all is said and done. Just the number of protects and unprotects should be interesting to watch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}} Broken template. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone with the POWER

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)

Also, although there is a death section, the lead should mention the day he died. That's how it goes, the lead is the summary. Then you get the details in the section below.--MahaPanta (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Link

{{editprotected}} Someone put a link to the Wikinews page on his death? Just a suggestion. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews was actually behind the curve on this article, as it still said "reportedly" dead like an hour after it was already confirmed and posted here. Maybe the link should go the other direction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected

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 is the right thing to do. It's more important to be accurate for the readers than it is to allow easy editing. Friday (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not WikiPolicy, punish the vandals not the article.--MahaPanta (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully support this protection. It was overdue. — Σxplicit 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY--MahaPanta (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy states that

Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. Brief periods of full protection are used in rare cases when a large number of autoconfirmed accounts are used to make a sustained vandalism attack on an article. Persistent vandalism, or the possibility of future vandalism for highly trafficked articles, rarely provides a basis for full-protection. Semi-protection is used for articles, such as Barack Obama, that have a pattern of heavy sustained vandalism..

Should be only semi-protected.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:49, 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. — Σxplicit 00:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive in what sense? All I saw was an admin not liking a certain edit, so he reverted the edit, THEN he protected the page. Very bad and questionable form if you ask me.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can not ignore a rule, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY--MahaPanta (talk) 00:55, 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. — Σxplicit 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I actually read it. It says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". Having it where people can not edit the article prevents us from improving Wikipedia.--MahaPanta (talk) 01:06, 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)

Vandalism happens, correct it, and get over it.--MahaPanta (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that due to the extreme traffic, the servers were instable and reversion was slowed. Tens of thousands of readers have seen the article with a broken infobox and vandalism. Cenarium (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No exception, people know Wikipedia is a Wiki and is subject to that. You don't block off the road because it's rush hour.--MahaPanta (talk) 03:28, 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)

Nice to meet you. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Standard operating procedure upon learning the death of someone famous should be full-protecting the page, otherwise every retard with an internet connection and 'a sense of humor' is going to hit it like a tidal wave. HalfShadow 01:44, 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)

Image in infobox

{{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)

 Done - There was a "px" where one shouldn't have been, I think. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

REVEALED: Vandalism by wiki admins

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)

This is a big deal, really? Is it possible that people are just trying to keep nonsense and poorly referenced material out of the article? It's not very important for Wikipedia to be fast. It's far more important that it not be gratuitously inaccurate. Friday (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was this before or after his death became confirmed beyond doubt? Evercat (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Really? So I guess Jeff Goldblum and Harrison Ford are dead too? Oh, whoops, they were hoaxes. See the admin's point yet? HalfShadow 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Zaphraud, but contributing to Wikipedia is not about how much time and effort you spend contributing to the encyclopedia, it's about making the article better for readers. Such selfish feelings about one's edits could start edit wars, which violate policy and cause lots of community frustration (probably not going to be any edit wars here, but I thought I might as well mention it here). If there are any edits that need to be done (BTW somebody please respond to my infobox image related request above) then consensus can be reached on this page, and {{editprotected}} can be used to get an admin's attention about it. Also, Zaphraud, if the reverted edits that contributors made do not cite any sources, then they can and should be reverted per Wikipedia policy. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in on the protection issue beyond saying that its quite lame that lines such as "Jackson still owns a stake" are still in the article, and nobody is changing them. Hrhadam (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why's that? It's not incorrect. Michael Jackson does, even in death, still own them. More accurately, his estate owns them which means it, along with his assets, will roll over to whomever he designated in his will. If there is no will, it will go to his kids. I suspect this is going to get very, very, dirty - much to the point that it makes the Vickie Lynn Marshall case look clean. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you said-- his estate does. Nobody owns anything after they die [unless you want to get very ethereal.. .] Little nuances such as the aforementioned are what separates Wikipedia from your run of the mill moronic blog, and it'd be nice to be able to keep the quality high. Registered, established users being unable to edit is a little bit lame. Hrhadam (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this text in article

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)

This line seems fine as it says "planned". Doesn't mean it actually has to happen, especially now. — Σxplicit 00:54, 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)

STOP MESSING WITH THE INFOBOX!!!!!

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)

Full protection incorrect

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)

I've somewhat noticed the vandalism occurring (and stated reasons in the history). It's no longer precautionary, thus, I support the full protection. --Blurpeace (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I predicted (correctly) would happen based on past articles, it was not so much pre-emptive as it was preventing. And likewise, as expected, when it dropped to semi-protection, look what happened. The page history more than justifies full protection. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for info on death in lead (It was removed awhile ago)

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)

Agreed, the lead is a summery of the article.--MahaPanta (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TURN DOWN PROTECTION!

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)

Quite literally, been there and done that. I hope it stays protected for at least the next day. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

wtf?

"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)

I removed. Evercat (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copyedited that para to make the tenses read better. If anyone is not happy with the changes please raise those concerns, here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it civil

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)

Infobox doesn't work

1.400.000 visits yesterday! Please check the infobox, OboeCrack (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rediculous, basically..

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)

I did. The IP should probably be blocked for BLP violations (see the protection log). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also block the one that keeps making the zombie joke.--MahaPanta (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Which channels? I've been watching all night and nobody's mentioned Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• According to CNET news, some Wikipedians began deleting references to Jackson's alleged death, saying in comments that "This is not yet verified," "He's not dead," "Premature edits," and "ONCE AGAIN, HE IS NOT DEAD, JUST STOP". Jolly Ω Janner 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• And another small-time news agency. Jolly Ω Janner 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen those. He specifically said, TV news channels.... MickMacNee (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sky News just gave a mention in passing that the incident caused Wikipedia to crash, but nothing else. MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

LOWER THE PROTECTION!!!

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)

Agreed, as I said before: Don't panic, vandalism happens, correct it, and get over it. --MahaPanta (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Semi-protect if need be, but locking out all editors is counterproductive. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:54, 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)

Whether an article is an FA or not doesn't generally play into whether an article gets protected or not; achieving FA status doesn't mean that there's nothing left to add to the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please read my section "To all you people who disagree with the protection..." below. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:01, 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)

• Far as I'm concerned, it can stay protected for the next 24 hours. That way, no one will be able to spam, add false information, or anything else. Only verifiable, accurate information will make it to the article and that's the way it should be. As for the all the Policy Police, WP:IAR, WP:DGAF, and WP:BOLD. I'm sure you'll live and won't suffer any adverse health effects from not being able to edit the page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That is easy for an administrator to say.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check my user page before making assumptions. I'm not an admin. I'm a user just like anyone else and, likewise, unable to make edits to the page. Considering the condition it was in (which I stated numerous times would occur) when it was merely semi-protected (One can only imagine what would've happened if it was unprotected), I fully support the complete lockdown. Not like it will kill me to not be able to edit the page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Uncontroversial" admin edits

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)

See discussion at WP:ANI Corpx (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)

(After six edit conflicts) I for one didn't notice either the protection or the inuse template, because I use a screen reader, and I zoomed right past the top of the article. Sorry about that. All my edits were just minor grammar tweaks and were completely uncontroversial. On your point, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a game of Nomic, and no-one should have to propose uncontroversial edits on the talk page if they can just make them on their own. Graham87 01:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the edits since protection, and I think only this one really needed discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, out of all the edits, would you focus on that one as needing discussion? Two refs simply to confirm the date of death, and one of them non-mainstream, is completely unnecessary. Even one ref for that is unnecessary, given that practically the entire world knows about it.

It's also worth mentioning that I edited only because I didn't realize it was fully protected; I thought it was still semi-protected. I don't approve of admins editing protected pages, unless to remove nonsense or fix formatting, or similar.SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if it sounds like I was singling you out. I was merely highlighting an edit that other editors questioned; see below. I myself don't see anything wrong with the edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You totally don't get it, do you? What makes you say that they don't require discussion? --Elliskev 01:45, 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)

You are correct, and I am wrong. Apologies and thank you. --Elliskev 01:45, 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)

Not being an admin, I'm not aware of what "pops up". Being a non-admin I'm only aware of what it says at WP:PROTECT, which I quoted at the top of this section. As for specifics:

• Removal of a reference by an admin while fully protected - no discussion
• Addition of content about record ticket sales by an admin while fully protected - no discussion
• Addition of an inuse tag to a fully-protected article. Are you kidding me?
• Unnecessary and probably not the best edit by an admin while fully protected - no discussion

However, my larger point is in regard to the volume of "uncontroversial" edits. If anyone ever wants to point to a case of apparent editing castes, here it is. The rate of edits being made to this full-protected page is astounding. Either the page is protected from editing, or it's not. In this case it's not—as long as the editor is an admin. --Elliskev 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the protection was made due to vandalism, not content dispute; so it doesn't have to be observed at the same level. Cenarium (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, two vandal edits over a span of 7 mts is not enough justification to lock down the page. I'm also awaiting your reply on how the other edit was a BLP violation/vandal edit Corpx (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please read my section "To all you people who disagree with the protection..." below. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Star on Hollywood Walk of Fame – tribute displaced by Brüno premiere

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)

To all you people who disagree with the protection...

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)

Wikipedia is also a place where anyone can edit, yet this is not true on this article at this hour. In must be pointed out that the admin who protected the page first made sure that he reverted that article to the version taht he prefered, then he protected the page. The edit that he reverted was not vandalism as he had suggested, but was a good faith edit. I have a right mind to report that admin at ANI.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, if you want. I already explained there. I'm completely in my rights per the BLP policy and protection policy. And I'm really not an admin who's going to protect preemptively, as a cursory look in my project/user talk contribs would show you... Cenarium (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It was a perfectly good edit (that even had a source) that the admin reverted before protecting the page. The page protection is needed, but I support restoring that edit (correct me if the source was unreliable). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, what's with all this BLP stuff? If he's dead then he is no longer a living person and therefore the article no longer falls under Biographies of Living Persons, so BLP policy would obviously be a moot point. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)