Talk:Singer and songwriter Michael Jackson dies at age 50

Hospilazed or dead?

Which is it? I hear reports of hospiliazation. --71.254.108.245 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

TMZ is reporting the death, we are trying to confirm before publishing. --SVTCobra 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Its official now, Sky News report that City law enforcement sources have confirmed it, I think they were holding back to allow the family to informed.KTo288 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Published LAT also has it. Citing local officials. Full peer review will be after the news settles down a bit. --SVTCobra 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited never the less. Otherwise will not be on the front page, etc. This will be a popular story. Still needs a bit about the upcoming tour, his life, etc. Calebrw (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. I would expect this to become a rather lengthly article eventually. --SVTCobra 22:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we do obituaries?KTo288 (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Category:Obituaries. --SVTCobra 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason for this article having the word report in front of it? Mr. Man (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At first it was just TMZ and LA Times reporting it...so essentially it was added to quote them DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, well thanks for clarifying...Mr. Man (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

twitter

Do we really need to include what celebrities said on their twitter accounts? I can understand public statements from celebrities but honestly, that website is the most annoying, unprofessional, and childish thing invented this past decade. How about a statement from the Jacksons once they have a press conference?

Bad idea

The potted biography that DragonFire1024 started here is a very bad idea. Wikipedia works hard at biographies on contentious subjects, which this is plainly one, and takes months and years to do them properly. I don't think that we can do a potted biography that is an accurate, NPOV, and fair overview of this person's life and works in 2 days. Nor, since we have this extensive news backgrounder right next door, do we really need to. We should stick to reporting the news, which is what we're good at. Let Wikipedia write the biographies and the encyclopaedia articles. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the exact policy here is of obituries, but all the mainstream newspapers I'm familiar with (UK broadsheets) carry obituries, and some have become quite famous for them, I see nothing wrong with wikinews emulating mainstream news media. As to having a ready made article at wikipedia there is a difference between obits and articles, in obits its the premissible to include more of the human element that would be out of place on wikipedia, how people feel emotionally, what influence the deceased has had e.t.c. .KTo288 (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You've completely missed the point actually made. Please read what I wrote, again. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I got as fair as I could, and really anyone can. If we had sat here and went through the last 50 years of his life, we seriously would have a Wikipedia article. I mentioned what I thought to be the most important and significant events that happened in modern times. You are right. It would take more than two days for us to come up with something as spectacular as a Wikipedia article (end sarcasm), but nonetheless is still major events. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Good article, however can we get rid of the comments by various celebs? Doesn't seem the right thing to have. Not going to change it myself! Dotty••|☎ 08:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note something that the article perhaps hasn't made clear: These aren't long-after-the-fact comments. These were the almost instant responses, posted to Twitter, by these people, as the news broke. See the sources. Uncle G (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Review revision 840544

Revision 840544 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Review a stable version. --SVTCobra 22:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 840544 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Review a stable version. --SVTCobra 22:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.