Talk:Michael Jackson

self proclaimed king of pop

this article besides clearly written by fans is incorrect. mj did indeed self proclaim himself. there are numerous witnesses to this.

Larry Stessel, an executive at Epic Records at the time, explains the origin of the name:

Michael called me one day and said, “I want to have a nickname, like ‘The Boss’ or ‘The King.’” I said, “Well, Bruce Springsteen is ‘The Boss,’ and Elvis Presley is ‘The King.’ You can’t be the King because you’ll never live it down. The press will rip you apart.” But Michael would not let this go. He hired his own personal publicist, Bob Jones. And one day, Bob issued a press release announcing that Michael Jackson was the King of Pop. Michael went rogue on us. (i want my mtv book )

you artitcle also states unparalled influence which is complete hyperbole. no hostorian has ever said such.lets tone in it please and be relasitic.

thank you

68.199.5.149 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect. Michael points to an introduction by Elizabeth Tayler here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s92BVuQbuyg as the origin of this phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.189.221 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Mj was a notorious liar and hype man . This self commissioned painting shows how self proclaimed mj really was floon.

http://www.bizarbin.com/bizarre-things-owned-by-michael-jackson/knighted/

71.234.118.65 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 November 2013

I would like to request this letter so I can edit this article and make some changes. Zenki Pedere (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --Stfg (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 12 December 2013

Is anyone going to mistake Michael Johnson for Michael Jackson? I don't understand why this "not to be confused with" appears at the top of this page? Take it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.189.221 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 12 December 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done I'm not sure what the article gained by having it there, so I removed it. If somebody disagrees, please chime in here right after you re-add it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jordie chandler never stated if mj was or was not circumcised

Your article is misleading . There is no credible source anywhere that states Jordan chandler described mj pen us as circumcised . Court documents show that judge Melville even agreed to the match . Please remove .

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

He said ..... "He (Jordy Chandler) described Jackson genitalia, it was unique because of the discolouration. And then we obtained a search warrant to photograph Jackson to cooperate, what the child had said. When photographing Jackson's genitalia, it did cooperate. In other words, the boy saw Jackson naked. Does that mean Jackson molested the child? No, but it adds to the credibility of the child". Bill dworin

Dr. Richard Strick was a doctor who was present on behalf of the local authorities during the photographing of Michael Jackson's dingdong. He said that Michael Jackson's genitalia was very oddly coloured with dark skin and light skin. He says he was later told that the boy (Jordy) description absolutely matched with the photographs that were taken.

The description matched and no where did Jordan chandler state mj was or was not circumcised Please remove 71.234.118.65 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you see Jordan's official description? Unless you have, you are just repeating information f'loons pass around. The only people who have seen it, apart from the children he molested, are the attorneys, the judge, and the police. Everything else is speculation. Now, the D.A. wanted to introduce the drawing, description, and photos of Michael's blotchy penis in court because they were a match, but nothing was said about foreskin. Much was said about a blotch the child could have only identified by being intimate.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

Mesereau said one without the other would be hearsay, which is laughable because Sneddon had every intention of introducing all of it in court. But if you read the document, nowhere does Mesereau say it wasn't a match.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

But most telling was Judge Melville's response. There was quite a discussion about introducing the evidence into court, under 1101(b), Character Evidence, for which the judge said was pointless, at this late date. It should have been introduced early in the trial, under Section 1108, Prior Bad Acts. But he went on to say, "And secondly, I think -- even though your analysis is I think correct, I keep going through it, but I think it is not hearsay."

http://www.mjfacts.info/transcripts/Court_Tra...

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2013

TylerBlatherwick77 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC) he molested his son Blanket