Talk:Smooth Criminal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Frankie LiDeo, which is an anagram of Frank DiLeo

It is not a true anagram, since the second has fewer letters than the former. How about "which is an intentional misspelling of..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.132.227 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lyrics

So They Came Into The Outway
It Was Sunday-What A Black Day
Every time I try to find him
He's leaving no clues-left behind him
Then I happen to of known
Of the suspect, or what to expect
Mouth To Mouth Resuscitation
Sounding Heartbeats
Intimidations

Are the lines in the video but not in the song.[1]

Meaning?

Is there any more meaning to this song than the explicit meaning? Was Jackson referring to a specific incident? Is there any reason for the name "Annie"? --LostLeviathan 22:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a reference to "CPR Annie", the nickname given to the female version (the male is Andy) of the CPR dummy that you practice upon. Trainees are told that before they perform CPR they must first assess the distress of the subject: they do this by gently shaking the dummy and asking "Annie, are you OK?". It would tie in with the seventh line of the excerpt above, also. Dagnabbitt 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This also occurred to me and seems like a plausible interpretation - it would be great if we could substantiate this with a reference. Dcoetzee 06:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

in the documentary regarding the album bad they say that this is the source of the sentance "annie are you ok". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.43.226 (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this goes into the article--Timtak (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC).

As a reader reading this interpretation of the "Annie are you ok?" as a CPR training routine is rather weak. I tried to follow the reference but the link failed. In addition it appeared to be a secondary source. I don't think that the idea of connecting Annie and Andy with CPR and is immediately obvious, I am British however and it maybe that this is more ingrained in American popular culture. The best reference would be to directly contact one of the people close to the production of the song and ask them, or a secondary source where Jackson says "this song is about Anie a CPR doll.....et.c." Just saying that he once attended a CPR course does not carry a persuasive argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Haslam (talk • contribs) 00:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

AAF Version

I think the Alien Ant Farm version of the song should be moved to its own seperate article. Anyone agree?

Fully agree. I would have thought this would have been done already..--Deon555^talk_Review 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. (See:Smooth Criminal (Alien Ant Farm)). — Moe Epsilon 02:12 September 16 '06

• Please stop splitting this article. WikiProjectSongs policy is that all versions of a song should be covered within the same article. Work on improving this article if you feel it doesn't currently offer sufficient coverage of the AAF version, but do not split the article as that is against standard procedure. GassyGuy 05:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not neccessarily true; double-A sides tend to share an article. - Ashadeofgrey 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And that is also something that needs to be remedied. Double A-sides should not have their own articles, even though some currently do. Those articles need to be split. GassyGuy 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it needs to be expanded to format with the other pop songs. The lack of chart position on Billboard (other than a quick mention) is a glaring omission. The song was obviously on the Hot 100, yet there is zero information about that on this page. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, these songs were released decades apart, have a different perspective on the song, released in different genres and different mediums, by different bands, to differing success. You can't possibly talk about these as though they are the same song on the same article. If this is the wikipedia policy, then THAT is what needs to be changed! 124.171.196.198 (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I Am An Idiot

Sorry, i totally f****d up this page when trying to add the European chart positions. I am very sorry for this, can someone fix it, please? (i don't wanna mess up more) Thanks!! /Matteus

Dude, we all make mistakes ;) -- Ashadeofgrey 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! :) /MatteusH

fan-section of "Music video"

In "Music video" section, there are some arguments about why some fans believe one man is the smooth criminal. I don't think the things written there have any encyclopedic value. Actually, I personally think they are bullshit and should be deleted, but I won't do that just based on my own opinion. So, I'm bringing this to discussion.

I think nobody there is *the* smooth criminal. Maybe all of them are, maybe none of them is, but I don't think one specific man is the smooth criminal. I also think the arguments given are not good enough.

"the gun has a peculiar effect on this man: the force of the shot sends him flying into a brick wall ... leaving nothing behind but a hole in the wall shaped like his corpse." -> For me, Michael Jackson and the producer(s)/director(s) were just trying to make a cartoon-like joke.

--CrazyTerabyte 04:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube links

Isn't it copyright infringement, or is it allowed to only have links? ... Should they not be removed? -- Lord Snoeckx 00:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually removed the links before I read this talk page, and came here to comment about why I removed it. I removed 4 YouTube links as the first one was removed by youtube for copyright infringement. I see no reason why the other 3 would not be counted as copyright infringement. Further, I feel that having youtube links of copyrighted videos would actually be contributing to the "piracy" effort. There is still one more video, listed as a reference for michael falling during one of the leans. I'm going to try to find an alternative for it. If I can't then I'll just remove it altogether. ĞavinŤing 03:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Choreography

This song and music video is probably best known for it's choreography. Could we mention somewhere who the choreographers were? LemonLion 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sc aaf.jpg

Image:Sc aaf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing Remix?

I have and seen a remix of the Smooth Criminal song. I believe it contains new lyrics by Wu-Tang Clan and Mobb Deep. It isn't listed in the remix section of the Smooth Criminal article, nor is it listed in Wu-Tang or Mobb Deep's pages. I have also been unable to find lyrics on any of the 3 artists/groups' pages. Is it unoffical, fan made, or is it just not well known?

Also, if you want to hear it, it's on youtube. (don't have a link) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.126.251 (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

George Michael

Isn't it suspected that this song is also from George Michael? Volkov ^talk 01:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference diversity

It says "The manoeuvre was copied by the dance group "Diversity" in the third series of Britain's Got Talent." That group used a low tech way to achieve it, not such shoes. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pg3fvanDDc at 1:08-1:12. Suggestion to mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakrys (talk • contribs) 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} I hate having to do this - but it seems anything having to do with MJ is being vandalised by anyone with a computer. I only ask for semi-protect to keep the IP Vandals and those creating username solely to vandalise away. I'd like to see 3 weeks, but 1 would be great. Thank you, TristaBella (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.— Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I think I may have done the above incorrectly. I'll try to fix it. TristaBella (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protect of this page

I hope I have done this correctly. There is quite a bit of IP vandalism of this page. Hoping a semi-protect will help. Thank you. TristaBella (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to make this request at Requests for Page Protection where an administrator can look at the request and make a decision. Sorry I didn't understand the first time, I thought you wanted to make an edit to an already semi-protected article. Regards, — Deon555^talk_{I'm BACK!} 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being this page protected. Lightwarrior2 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Section regarding the patent claim might be misleading

The patent which was registered regarding the device which enabled Jackson and other dancers to lean beyond their centre of gravity was for a particular means of performing this act. Mechanisms to achieve the same effect have existed and have been used for many years. The article might unintentionally lead the reader to believe that Jackson had originated the basic idea of the lean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson's short film Moonwalker

"Jackson's short film Moonwalker"

Moonwalker isn´t a short film. it´s a feature film with over 90 min. someone should correct this. --18:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.134.167 (talk)

"The Smooth Criminal"

Who keeps removing that paragraph! IT'S A FREAKING REAL MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.24.143 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Ramirez?

In Jermaine Jackson's new book, "You Are Not Alone," he claims that "Smooth Criminal" was loosely inspired by the Richard Ramirez murders. The murders themselves occurred in '84/'85, when Michael was reportedly turning out a ton of song lyrics/ideas for the "Bad" album (he wrote "Dirty Diana" in the early '80s, etc.) . . . so the time-frame fits.

Jermaine said that Michael never publicly disclosed his inspiration, because he knew it wouldn't sound good for the then "squeaky clean" Michael Jackson to be writing a song based on a very real, very recent serial killer.

If someone could quote Jermaine's book and add this new tidbit to the article, that would be cool. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.5.123.192 (talk) 23:56, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Key signature

The article states that this song is composed in C major. While that is technically the right key signature, I think it's more accurate to indicate that this song is written in the relative minor of C, which is A minor.

71.227.82.255 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Source on Anti-Gravity Lean in Music Video

In the music video section, the only cited source on the anti-gravity lean states that wires, as opposed to the patented method involving special shoes and an anchor post fixed in floor, were used to achieve the illusion. However, in the video itself, in the shot at the time when Michael and another dancer have finished performing the illusion, two shiny object reminiscent of the posts described in the patent are clearly visible on the floor. This is apparent enough that it should be visible on any unaltered copy of the original music video of decent quality. Furthermore, the source article makes no mention of where this claim of use of wires comes from and no author is attributed to the article.

On this basis, it is of my opinion that the referenced source is not reliable enough for its content to be reflected on Wikipedia. Instead, the patent itself along with the evidence of its use in the Smooth Criminal music video ought to be considered sufficient evidence that the patented method is indeed the far most likely method to have been used to achieve the illusion. MagnusOxlund (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smooth Criminal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishcharts.ie%2Fsearch%2Fplacement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Chicago 1945

I have taken the liberty of deleting the line mentioning Chicago 1945. It has nothing to do with Criminal or Al Capone as stated on this wiki and in an interview with Steve Porcaro. i'd also like to mention it also has nothing to do with Chicago on Xscape.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamblingb (talk • contribs) 19:10, 09 November 2017 (UTC)

GA

I've listed this article for review because I think that this article has Good Article potential. The article is properly sourced, well written and formated. Based on what I've seen from other GA Songs. I think that Smooth Criminal meets the GA criteria. If any editors could led their suggestions and/or opinions to help to improve the article, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• This article is nowhere near ready for GAN. There are several sections of the article that are uncited, which would make it fail automatically in a GAN. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Akhiljaxxn, the GA nomination instructions say that if you have not made significant contributions to the article, you should check with the major contributors (easiest way is here on the talk page) prior to nominating to get their opinions as to whether the article is ready. The few edits you did make were to add bare URL references to the article, and bare URLs are not considered adequate for GA-level articles, and are not advised at any time. You might want to check the GA criteria in details, since the article was in fact far from being ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Were pegs and special shoes used in the music video?

There has been some back and forth revisioning over claims that either harnesses and cables or pegs and special shoes were used to achieve the Anti-Gravity Lean in the music video. Here are two central points the situation seems to revolve around:

• The US patent suggests harnesses and cables were used, and news articles referencing the patent directly make that claim.
• The music video itself shows evidence of pegs and special shoes being used.

How are the above two facts compatible?

In trying to decide this, it helps to have a basic understanding of patents and the legal considerations that surround filing one. A good read that covers this can be found on Henry Patent Law Firm's website (here's an archive link for posterity).

Please note, I have no affiliation with the Henry Patent Law Firm, and I do not provide any legal advice.

Central to the question above is the fact that applying patentable means and methods can be a liability when done before acquiring a license to do so or owning the patent describing them. The Anti-Gravity Lean patent was filed years after the widely successful Smooth Criminal music video had been published, so any use of the peg and special shoes might have presented a liability in the event that the patent were later disputed or invalidated.

In light of those circumstances, it's possible to speculate that it may have been an attempt at hedging against litigation when it was suggested in the patent that harnesses and cables were used to perform the Anti-Gravity Lean in the music video. Journalists researching the story likely weren't aware of the dispute surrounding the method used in the music video, and might have assumed that the patent is correct when suggesting that a harness and cables were used. Again, this is entirely speculative, but it offers a solution to the two conflicting explanations.

The majority of references claim a harness and cables were used. Should Wikipedia not favor this explanation?

The news articles that make this claim all reference the same patent as their only source. Without anything else to point to for reference, it's their sheer numbers that amplify it. Not a claim's prevalence, but its merits are what should be weighed against competing explanations. With that in mind, and since original analysis isn't permitted here on Wikipedia, it's my assessment that describing both competing explanations is the responsible and correct thing to do in this case.

If anybody objects to this, please respond below before making revisions.

MagnusOxlund (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You can't simply cite a screenshot, particularly a non-free one, like you did and then add your own interpretation to it. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy wouldn't allow that per WP:FREER since you could add sourced textual commentary instead. Moreover, any interpretation of the screenshot either by you or that you hope the reader makes would be WP:OR. Now, if you can find a reliable source (a secondary source) which mentions the use of the pegs and discusses them in the context of this particular screenshot, then it might be possible to add the screenshot to the article per WP:NFC#CS since seeing the screenshot being discussed then might be considered helpful to the reader's understanding of some of the technical aspects dealt with when making the video; otherwise, there's no need for the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a message here.

The image was intended to accompany the other two video references similarly to how a quote might accompany a textual reference, the reasoning being that the relevant section of the two video sources only constitutes a small, split-second fraction, and either one may be inaccessible to most readers. I wasn't able to find any guidelines on citing images directly, so I made the assumption that it was permitted. I apologize if citing an image with that purpose was a mistake. I have revised the article and requested the deletion of the image for now.

Regarding the original research aspect, I agree the title of the image is not neutral as it should be. That's a mistake, not an attempt at guiding the reader towards a particular interpretation.

The statement itself is a descriptive observation relevant to the topic, not an interpretation. In that respect, it should be in accordance with policy on citing primary sources as it doesn't require specialized knowledge to repeat. I have changed the wording to remove any doubt regarding its neutrality. For reference, here is the relevant excerpt from the policy:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Of course an interpretation may still be formed by the reader, but it's not due to sway, bias, or explicit unsupported claims, so I question the need for a separate reference to a discussion making that interpretation.

MagnusOxlund (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The description of what you see is one of millions of things you might have noticed in the videos. You have added it strictly to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." WP:SYN - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff (talk · contribs), did you stop by here before making your revision? If yes, would you care to leave a comment explaining the rationale, considering the above? MagnusOxlund (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I did. The previous revision was overcomplex and overcited. The lean can be explained in a couple of short paragraphs using only two reliable news sources. We don't need to link to the patent, the DVD, or image or whatever, or resort to original analysis. Popcornduff (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering that every phrasing I've added has been replaced in your revision, regardless of whether it fell under the original analysis accusation or not, would you mind disclosing your opinion on the topic? This section was added specifically in the interest of openness and discussion to pre-empt edit-warring over this. MagnusOxlund (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that the previous revision had too much detail, was too hard to read, and was too hard to verify.

For example, the first sentence was: "In the music video, at one point Michael Jackson and the dancers located immediately around him perform a forward lean that seems physically impossible." We don't need to say "at one point"; it's not important whether the move comprises the entirety of the video (and readers will correctly assume that it doesn't). We don't need to say "located"; removing the word removes no information. We don't need to say how close the dancers are to Jackson; it's not important. Etc. Popcornduff (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's fair game to address lengthy phrases in edits, but your revision went to the extent of modifying every single phrasing of the contribution I made. Are you arguing that everything I wrote was either convoluted or an attempt at original research?

And on that last note, would you mind specifying what specifically still constituted original research at the point of your revision? MagnusOxlund (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Fast or moderate tempo...

Lede says fast. Later we say moderate. Neither appear to have a direct source. Koncorde (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Koncorde, removed. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No probs. Didn't want to take any action in case there was some common practice to say 120+ = "fast" or similar. Give people chance to source it. Koncorde (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

revdel request

Please revdel [2] and [3] as they contain the full copyrighted lyrics. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Done, but you can use {{Copyvio-revdel}} for this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)