Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 2

message: am i the only person disturbed by the naked photo in the article. I mean its an article and not very appropriate for this site
:Wikipedia is not censored. Read the content disclaimer. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not as if the picure is showing a sexual act, all it is is four naked men on stage. Look about the site, and you'll find many other pictures. How people can be offended by the sight of the human body is beyond me. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can be offended with the human body. I wouldn't want to see my neighbors naked. That would offend anybody. Anyways, though I could care less if the image was on the article or not, it really doesn't inform us much. All I get out of it is "RATM stood naked somewhere," not, "Oh wow, look at these people and their political beliefs." There really is no point to it in the article. IronCrow 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  To cause offence is the whole point of the image and their act of protest. DevAnubis 07:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Nude art is fine, this is not. Wonder why......its bands like this that point out such hypocrisy in this crazy ass world we live in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguestate (talk • contribs) 18:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
So your saying the image is in the article with the sole purpose of it being to "cause offence"? In that case it should certainly be removed - and I am going to do so. --LeakeyJee 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Allow me to make this very clear. 
#The image is of a notable incident in the history of the subject of this article. 
#No suitable alternative images to depicting this incident are available.
#A censored version of the image would not be a suitable alternative because it would not depict the incident accurately.
#As the incident was of an entirely visual nature, removing the image would cause the article to be less informative. 
Ergo the image stays. Skomorokh incite 04:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with LeakyJee. I don't believe removal of the image would make the article less informative when a written description would explain the exact nature of the protest. Lb34 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very informative; it summarizes the section into one image. Not to mention it invokes interest. I know when I first saw it, I said "WTF?!" out loud, and immediately started reading the section to find out why they did it. -- Reaper  X 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbed

message: Okay, I think this is getting a little out of hand. I don't think we can add anymore quotes to the Reunion section. I reverted this last addition primarily because we already have a quote of de la Rocha slamming "those fascist motherfuckers at the Fox News Network". But I'm still concerned and I need to say this.I think we need to start being selective of what's included, or this section may become a coatrack because it is nothing but a collection of de la Rocha's words in order to make a point that what the Bush Administration has done is wrong, which isn't very neutral, especially considering this is an article about a musical band. Even though this is what RATM is basically all about here in 2007, we have other stuff to cover.To remind some and make notice to all:if you came here to carry de la Rocha's words to the Wikimedia community, go to Wikiquote and have a field day. If you came here to help carry the band's message, you came to the wrong place to do it. Opinions or original thought don't mean jack squat on an encyclopedia built on facts, go use a blog.Besides that, I think the section is okay for now. -- Reaper  X 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have an issue with this section. IMO, the last 2 speeches should be removed and summarized with "De la Rocha made subsequent speeches at two Rock the Bells shows critisizing the Iraq War." It makes the article too long. The speeches that caused a feud with the "fascist Fox network" are notable enough, but the band has made comments critisizing the U.S. throughout it's existence. In response to 68.157.60.208, relevance to the topic of the Reunion tour is illustrated well enough by the first speech. We don't need them all. Objections? -- Reaper  X 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose this diff] to the reunion section. Any objections should be made with good reason, because I think this is quite resonable. It cuts the article down by 4.1kb, makes the section more focused, and a wikiquote link is there for those who are interested in anything else de la Rocha said. -- Reaper  X 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going ahead with it after no response. -- Reaper  X 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reunion section

message: Really, I mean, I was doing a school report on the band, and I went down and my teacher saw the pic of the band naked and told me I wasent aloud to do the report anymore, thats not really fair...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.119.35 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been dicussed over and over, yet it still remains. I believe it is an example of WP:SNOW, and therefore warrants no further discussion. -- Reaper  X 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is fault of a negligent parent, and not Wikipedia, when a child stumbles upon adult content in a website which so clearly asserts that it is not censored, and absolutely includes content not appropriate for minors. Second, this was not stance devised by teens alone (or any at all, for that matter), so criticizing it based on the age of one helpful commentator is inappropriate to say the least. VanTucky Talk 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd hardly class ordinary nudity as adult content, however that's one for a broader discussion. xlynx 10:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not arguing that it's right, or wrong. I'm quite neutral on it, either having it or linking to it is fine with me. I'm just saying I don't think raising yet another stink about it is going to change it. All of archive 1 is filled with discussion about it, and it was discussed again above. Not to mention the image's history has had a bit of a war. Even through all this, it still remains. Just putting that out there. -- Reaper  X 03:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The image is a photo of a nude protest, censoring it would be a highly questionable practice. I am wondering why you would find it inappropriate for any child to see a picture of a nude protest? Finally a non-pornographic, meaningful nude picture on the internet. Johnnyw talk 11:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I will revert the edit. The picture stays - it has a purpose, and isn't there for the sake of it, it is demonstrating the protest they made, and it's not our problem that your teacher didn't like it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You fail to understand the point of the "not censored" policy. It means that the taste of an image is not a suitable factor in choosing whether to use it, period. If a properly-licensed image illustrating a pivotal event (such as this one) exists, then it is our duty as an informational resource to illuminate the subject by using the image. In this case especially, an image is, as they say, worth a thousand words. VanTucky Talk 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what he said. Also, please see WP:SNOW... this has been discussed before, and has always stayed - we're not gonna' remove it because it might "offend" a few people. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Break. Firstly, I'm going to ask everyone to sign their posts using four tidles (~~~~). Secondly, I want to put this to bed, and I am requesting this receives wider community attention. I'm expecting lots of feedback on this one, so let's try and sift through this one last time and have some solid consensus. -- Reaper  X 04:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's exactly what I'm asking here. Either that or just leaving it. Thanks for the example. -- Reaper  X 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely not. That implicitly says "this image is potentially offensive so we hide it behind a box", while the other images are instantly viewable. As an encyclopaedia, we don't decide what image is "offensive" and what image isn't. This is the exact same reason why  was deleted. Melsaran (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that the protest is against exactly this sort of "think of the children" mentality suggests very strongly to me that the image should stay. It's a notable addition to the article, because this is an article about Rage Against The Machine - a band that virtually defines themselves by protest. If it was an article about Elton John I'd probably agree that it wasn't necessary, but this image shows one of the kinds of protests that the band hurls themselves headlong into. If anything, we need more images of them involved in protests. Orpheus 05:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Listen, just break it down to the very basics. 1.) Rage Against the Machine (as the name more than tacitly implies) is a band very much in support of free expression in the form of opem protest, orthodox or otherwise. 2.) Wikipedia is a virtual encyclopedia and is not subject to censorship - WP:NOT#CENSORED, 3.)The picture is profoundly informative, illustrating (no pun intended) the very nature of the band's principles, and 4.)There is precedent for making such a photograph visible per the hundreds of articles detailing reproductive anatomy, and not just with cartoon schematics. Granted that is for "educational" purposes, but then again, information is education. This is obviously informative Wisdom89 08:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only comment I have is this - at the start of a lot of Wikipedia articles there are disclaimers about spoilers, current events, disputed information etc. Why not a disclaimer that the page contains an image which has nudity. I'm not commenting about the picture itself, just that I would like to see a warning (similar to the 'not safe for work' references you see on a lot of internet sites. Thanks. 203.31.52.131 03:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Comment - ...a rock band that put an image of a burning monk on their cover (which I personally find a lot more disturbing then seeing four naked men...) Protest is an important part of the band's biography. An image depicting one of the protests doesn't seem entirely out of place. As of yet, I haven't heard one reason to remove it that goes beyond "it is sick" or "it could be shocking" etc. which is why I would keep the image for the time being. Johnnyw talk 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JohnnyW, I couldn't have said it myself. The fact that nobody's tried to take down the photo of the burning monk from the Rage Against the Machine (album) article, yet have a separate page just to handle complaints about an image of four people without clothes is a better description of the idiocy of censorship of nudity if I've ever heard it.  Floaterfluss  (talk) (contribs)   19:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DO we need that naked picture? 

message: I think that naked picture should be taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.160.36.237 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before this opens up again, please look through the PMRC archive, and see why it doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting taken down. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: !!! -- Reaper  X 05:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. Jack?! 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply put, this picture is going to stay. Nobody will ever have a sufficient argument for its removal. ThunderPower (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscene Picture

message: If you are here to argue about the PMRC image being removed, please see the archive of past discussions regarding the subject. Chances are, any argument you wish to deal with has been brought up before. In all truth, the image does not have a snowball's chance of being taken down, so before you start an argument about how you dislike the picture being there, please see the two links I have posted, and try to only post something about the picture if you feel you have something new to add - otherwise the discussion will be over rather quickly. ≈ The Haunted Angel21:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening statement

message: Punk rock should be added to the genre. They're one of the most rebellious bands in history and I barley see any mention of "punk rock" inflected in their music through out this entire article. I'm pretty sure most would agree with me. Add it. 99.242.214.145 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source please. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 12:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: Should be "are" NOT "is", jees.  
--Dd1989 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've come across a difference between American and British English. In short, the current form is correct when talking about American bands. Out of interest, why change only one "is"? CloudNine (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, friend, but I agree with CloudNine on this one. It's an American band, use American English. You can read CloudNine's link above, or read the style manual about this subject:Manual of Style. Macduffman (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you have made an error -- I hope this helps. First of all, the last line does not make sense to me. If I was using the (Swedish Wikipedia)  to talk about Abba, I would in fact use Swedish grammar, because that is the language I would be speaking. To my knowledge there is not a major form of English known as "Swedish English" (as opposed to Australian English or Irish English). Secondly, I think you have misunderstood the article you quote above with "^^^". The line about the Beatles is justification for bands with plural names to use plural verbs, bands with names like The Beatles, The Killers, The Rockets, what have you. In AmE, the proper noun must have a plural form for the plural verb usage. That is why "The Giants" and "The Beatles" are listed as taking a plural verb in AmE. If you note the line about The Clash, it says use "are" for BrE and "is" for AmE. The Clash is singular, in AmE it uses a singular verb.Conclusion: the point is that "Rage Against the Machine" is not as explicitly "plural-sounding" as The Beatles. "The Clash" is a plural noun which takes a singular form, and so it uses a singular noun in AmE. Articles such as The Lord of the Rings, which has a strong British connection, use British English conventions (such as "centre" rather than American "center"). Rage Against the Machine is/are from America, and I believe-- and I think you can read this section of the MOS to support-- that American conventions are a good idea. I hope my explanation helps. Thanks, Macduffman (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RATM Is or Are an american rock group

message: RATM is unquestionably a primarily American topic, and thus this article should be written in American English. Wikipedia policy is unambiguous on this issue. I have inserted a note in the article explaining this, and requesting that editors refrain from mistakenly changing it to British English. Skomorokh 19:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not a controversial matter

message: I found some stuff about it, but I don't know the album, it seems to be a 'best of'.
Can anyone confirm this, or is it just a fake/fan release? ~ Moersleuteltje  —Preceding comment was added at 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 30 For A Revolution

message: First off, I apologize for messing up the archives, my brain is tired. Secondly, is there anyone good with screenshots? I think a screenshot from the "Sleep Now in the Fire" video would be very beneficial to the article. Can anyone do this? -- Reaper  X 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would that be justified as fair use outside the song article? Skomorokh incite 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the PMRC image (which shocks people primarily), it illustrates RAtM's bold protests to spread their revolutionary viewpoints, something that is a major part of the band's identity. -- Reaper  X 21:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I can't say I understand the policy, just that screenshots from films are hardly ever allowed to be used in other articles unless the actors are dead. Is it not conceivable that free images exist to display rage's "revolutionary viewpoints"? Skomorokh incite 22:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe there's some sitting in someone's desk. But I've looked and can't find any on the web. -- Reaper  X 22:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sleep Now in the Fire video

message: I think the statement saying they're playing on December 3, 2007 should be taken down as there are no statements of the concert on the band's website or the Colisseum's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.59.194 (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nassau Colisseum Concert 

message: I suggest moving most of the section to a new article, Rage Against the Machine (phrase), because many of the examples given are only of tangential relevance to the band itself. Any thoughts? CloudNine 11:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's simply not notable. I say just cut the references here down to what is actually remarked upon in reliable sources - that should solve the problem. Skomorokh incite 11:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and removed it. The text is available below in case the general consensus suggests reinclusion. CloudNine 15:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the section could be re-integrated as an "Impact" section, divided into parts dealing with the phrase (which I'm sure could be supported as being popularised by the band) and a section on musical influence (several sources have identified them as the founders of 90s rap-rock/metal or credited them with reintroducing activism to popular music). It is probably worth including Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine, though they may fit in either of those sections. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" split 

message: I got an email:
"The brand
new www.ratm.com
website launched!
Be sure to stop by to comment on the new message board, check
out the latest tour dates, see new live photos and a whole lot more.
ratm.com"
Then it lists the sites tour dates of Australia and Japan I'm so excited I can't put it in wikipedia haha  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.101.78 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reunion

message: Hi there, seeing as this is the alternative music collaboration of the week I just thought I would offer up my resources. I have all Rage's studio albums and am fairly proficient at making ogg music samples that conform to the fair use standards.
At the moment I'm finding it hard to find somewhere to throw in some illustrative samples because the article's focus is so heavily on activism rather than the band's style and music (which has been heavily influential and revolutionary to say the least). I would argue that the activism subheadings should be combined and condensed rather than expanded... but hey, I've hardly made any edits to this article and haven't even read through the entire activism section because I honestly find it a bit too dry for consumption. I just think the proportions of the band history, musical style and activism should be more evenly weighted.
So, if there is ever more discussion about the band's sound, I'll be more than happy to chop you up a short sample that illustrates something discussed in the text. Considering "The group's music is based primarily on de la Rocha's rhyming styles and Morello's unusual guitar techniques," surely we could use some discussion of Morello's inventive solos (Wake Up? Bulls on Parade? Guerilla Radio?), De La Rocha's lyrics and the band's rap-metal crossover moments. Whatever, basically, leave a message on my talk page if you'd like a sample made. - Phorque (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason for the predominant focus being on the band's activism and politics is that most of the interviews and articles with the band focus on that - they're generally music or politics publications that mention something as amorphous as "rap-rock" or as far off the mark as "grunge" (!) before ploughing into what distinguished the band from their peers, which is generally more interesting to both types of publication. Of course, guitar magazines often had interviews with Morello that went into lots of detail, but he brushed most of those questions off - unfortunate, since coverage of his style is entirely absent from this article. The band are rarely acknowledged as especially innovative in the rap/funk/punk/metal style (at which Commerford has expressed frustration), though the sources are out there. Some specific things I can source are the feelings of the band members on their music. There's an early de la Rocha quote (from before he left the media stuff to Morello) in which he makes it clear he thinks the band is "punk and hip hop" musically, which about sums it up. Morello also talks about Sabbath and Zeppelin influencing his style, but de la Rocha doesn't (or at least didn't) like metal. The rhythm section is more focused on the funk/hip hop/jazz end of the sound. All this I can source if and when I have a few spare hours, but there's very little published on the way the band's sound changed from album to album, which is also important - they hit their biggest success when the alternative, funk, jazz and punk influences were downplayed to accommodate more metal and hip hop style. There was a radio interview here in Australia back in the late 90s in which Morello mentioned that The Battle of Los Angeles was more heavily inspired by metal and hip hop than their earlier, more diverse efforts. If anyone has any back issues of relevant magazines, that'd be the best bet. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 06:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple of guitar magazine interviews with Morello; I might even have one with Commerford. I probably won't have time to go through them anytime soon, but for soundclips a good idea would be one from each album. Definitely "Bulls on Parade", but the others are subject to yoru discretion, Phorque. Oh, and I was meaning to trim down that activism and politics section (due to its size this article is the eighth-longest page in the Alt-Rock wikiproject, and it doesn't even talk about the music!); hopefully I can take a pass at that soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting points, guys. It comes as a surprise to me that this is actually somewhat of a result of how Rage have been portrayed in the media. But yeah, at the very least we must make an effort to dig up what's out there about the band's style/sound/influence(s). I'll get to work on some samples. - Phorque (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More music discussion/samples