Talk:Killing in the Name

I got halfway in putting in one of those number 1 navigation boxes on when the article was edited mercilessly like a zillion times. When will the chaos end! Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

June 2006

I don't want to extend the mention of racism in law enforcement too much here. the prev. version did not clearly state the issue that is raised in the lyrics. k. CrackityKzz 20:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

genre?

i dont think the song's genre should be classified as "heavy metal"... it is something else (though im not quite sure myself)

- i'm thinking rapcore. ~daniel

• Eh, heavy metal is close enough. Take away Zack and RAGM would clearly be classified as heavy metal. No point really arguing over the genrea though cos they fit into a kazillion different ones

• I think this is probably their most metal-like song, but it still uses rapping. Xunflash 19:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just heard a version of this song (with the same lyrics) on the radio today. It wasnt heavy metal or anything, was quite chilled out actually. Which of the two is the original??? --Burgas00 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok just found the version by a French group called La Maison Tellier. Can be heard here: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=61170641

--Burgas00 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well that's obviously not Rage Against the Machine...pretty creative though, its got the same chords and lyrics, but totally different style. Something The Nightwatchman would do. Xunflash 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's RATM by the way, not RAGM

Rage is "Rapcore". But really, their style is their own (a few bands prior to them have a similar feel, but ratm is pretty unique).

Rapcore/Rap rock is just the Vocal style but the musical Style is Alternative rock. Alternbativew metal is a more agressive version fo ALternative rock, and My descion that it is one of the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.91.236 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lyric Change

Did anyone else realize that when RAGM played "Killing in the Name" at Woodstock '99 that Zack de la Rocha changed the lyrics of the 2nd verse to "Some of those that work forces, are the same that burn churches," instead of "burn crosses" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.183.155 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

He's done the same at other live performances and I have mentioned it when I edited the article. Aspeas 11:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I remember that they were burning an American Flag during the performance. 69.121.147.208 02:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Some of those that burn crosses are the same that hold office" Those are the lyrics on the RATM live album I have. I think it is Live at the Grand Olympic Auditorium - nick lane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.50.115 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I still haven't quite got my head around this citation thing, but someone in the know should really get rid of the "citation needed" and put a good citation there. Un every single live video I have seen of this band - and the one time I saw them live earlier this year - Zack uses the altered line ("burn crosses... hold office"). Demonofthefall (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I believe I have cleaned up the article to an acceptable standard. All that needs adding are a few sources which I am working on but its hard to do here as I'm at school and we have limited internet access. I shouldf have them done by tonight. Aspeas 11:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the lyrics

I think there should be an explanation of the lyrics. The message the song brings is after all very important to them.

Thomas271104 19:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Thomas

"Killing in the Name of" - correct title? Since when?

I've checked on the iTunes Store AND on Zune Marketplace where they BOTH list the song as "Killing in the Name".

So when did "Killing in the Name of" become the correct title?

I ask this because a recent edit by 24.151.142.148 (talk) says otherwise.

Was the song by Kansas EVER called "Carry On MY Wayward Son"? Last I check it was called "Carry On Wayward Son".

Might I added that if "Killing in the Name of" is the correct title, then why would the song be listed as "Killing in the Name" in Guitar Hero II?

Sorry to rant on, but stuff like this does get annoying. lightsup55 ( T | C ) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics aren't changed in Guitar Hero II

I've played the song countless times, and it just muffles them out, because you can almost hear Motherfuckers at the end.

Guitar hero 2 vocals were BUTCHERED.

Zach says "motherfucker" not "motherfuckers" and how could you tell if they were butchered? Harmonix and Activision mess with the songs so you could hear yourself playing more than the song...if you don't bvelieve me, play a song on their 25 times and then listen to it (not play it on GH). Otherwise I mostly came here to post this. [1], YaBoiKrakerz

no he is singin "UNDER CONTROL!" instead of "MOTHERMUCKER!" and "under control i won't do what you're tell me" instead of "fuck you i wont do what you tell me". it's a cover, a very bad cover/Edwin from sweden

Single details

As this is an actual single, we need details adding of when it was released, as well as a tracklisting section with each song named. The opening paragraph is very confusing regarding B-sides and a re-release, and I don't want to change it since I can't work out what it intends to say. Can anyone help? Kristmace (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the song "Darkness of Greed" wasn't unreleased, it appeared on the Crow motion picture soundtrack in 1994, under the title "Darkness" jasker (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Release Date

The singles official release date was the November of 1992 we all know that. But if you look at the revision history of the page you'll see that there have been multiple changes to the songs release date. Unless a good reference is provided to confirm the exact day, just leave it as it is. In November alone we've had 6th of November, most recently 10th of November and others. For goodness sake, please just leave it has November.

And to admins, if you see anyone else change the release date in future without good reason, can you please ban them forever??!! If you look at the history of the page you'll see that the release date has been changed several times. I propose a semi-protection so that no IPs can edit it. --Sky Attacker (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

serious ommission

The article is written for people who already know the song. But wikipedia has an international audience! Can someone expalin more clearly why it was controversial and provoked a lot of complaints! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Some editors may be attempting to sanitize the article and avoid the swear words. The article should not be censored but there is no need to repeat the controversial lyrics over and over again in the article, once should be enough. -- Horkana (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Sound sample?

Any expert editors know the correct process for getting a short sound sample included in an article? Would be nice to have 10-20 seconds of the guitar riff included. -- Horkana (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Mattgirling. -- Horkana (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No probs – does it work OK? It doesn't in my browser, but I seem to remember having to install XiphQT in the past (which I don't have on this machine). matt (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I rarely use sound, but I've got a huge list of codecs installed, not sure what's going on. I assumed it was a simple flash based player. Works for me. -- Horkana (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Number 1

The article has some issues I'm going to explain here as the edit summaries are inadequate and I don't want to waste time reverting changes that some editors might not understand.

The intro should summarize the article. The intro should not place too much emphasis on the 2009 Christmas number 1 campaign. The campaign it is recent and easy to focus on but WP:NOTNEWS and it should not be allowed to overwhelm the intro or the article and the years of history this song has.

The campaign is against X Factor which has 5 Christmas number ones. The campaign is not against Joe, there is no need to emphasize him, putting his name in the summary is far too much detail.

The celebrity supporters of the campaign are interesting but the list is quickly sprawling (I'm guilty of this too) and may need to be cut down. The citations really should be news articles, not just postings from their official websites (although it is good to reference those too) because a news source bothering to mention that Liam Howlett of the Prodigy supports the campaign helps suggest his opinion is notable (At present Muse lack an adequate citation to highlight the notability of their opinion compared to any other group. The link to the banner advert on their website is not something you can reasonably expect to still be there later and like a constantly changing twitter page or myspace page is poor reference source).

There is an item mentioning the size of the facebook group. This items uses BBC as a reference source, and they give a fixed number for a specific date. This should not be updated. Facebook cannot be used directly as a source for the number (it keeps changing for one thing) and a news article helps establish notability.

Hopefully this more detailed explanation will help editors understand why their changes need to be removed and others will help keep the article clean. -- Horkana (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree – I've just removed another statistic about the Facebook group. These sort of numbers are completely unverifiable – but what the BBC (as a "reliable" source) states is an entirely different matter.

I think the whole section needs cutting back, and I might be bold and do this myself. We really don't need to know each and every person who supports it (reliable source or not) – just that it has caused such opinion to come out. matt (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Just done a bit of pruning. Comments/criticism welcome. matt (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Was a pretty bold deletion, maybe I reverted too much of it but I'm willing to reconsider. I agree with you in principle in trimming down the celebrity endorsements but I wonder who if any of these are really notable? Considering how much work and how many different editors added bits and pieces I'd urge caution before deleting it. I realise Dave Grohl is a cool musician and was added to the article first but in the broader view really are any of the endorsements more notable than Paul McCartney? His opinion having added weight as someone who had at the time made recent appearance on X Factor.

I'm hoping when the Christmas number one is announced and this matter is mostly concluded I'm hoping then we might again have an article that gives us all the totals, facebook group, charity money raised, betting odds a total number of members all in one place and then we can prune the article substantially but for now I kind of like the extra bulk. -- Horkana (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel that there's just far too much superfluous text – especially where (like you said) the other "celebrity" endorsements are shown. I think that perhaps a sentence outlining these and maybe one or two examples – it's definitely relevant that McCartney has commented, but Stephen Fry? Similarly, I think there's too much about chart positioning, who was leading the bookies' vote at which time etc. I think we need to outline the fact that RATM have led most of the week, the odds have changed throughout the week, and that the physical release of the X Factor song may well change things.

So I think we need a para detailing the background of this "battle" (including the charity donations and so on), one showing the various support and criticism, and one outlining race itself – chart positions, bookies' odds etc. Just my thoughts! matt (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics should be "Fuck you I wont do what you tell me", not "Fuck you I wont do what you tell [sic]"

Userbox

this user won't do what you tell me.

Nowt to do with the article of course, but anyone wishing to celebrate this festive achievement might be interested in this new userbox:
{{User:Fences and windows/Userboxes/RATM}}. Fences&Windows 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"The campaign provoked commentary from political parties"

This is in the intro but not followed up on anywhere else in the article. What political parties? What did they say?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It originally said "...provoked commentary from both parties...", which I added. It was changed by User:Longwayround here, with a summary of "Changed both -> political parties. The UK has more than two significant political parties". Just a misunderstanding of the wording – it's got nothing to do with politics – "both parties" refers to RATM and Joe McElderry/X-Factor, not any political parties. Whether or not this means other people have been confused as well I don't know, but this should be considered. For the time-being, I have reverted. matt (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Tracy Morter

I was very surprised that there was no due credit given to Jon and Tracy Morter who had a pioneering role in the campaign by launching the Facebook campaign and this would not have been possible without their leadership and perseverence. Yet as soon as I created the page Jon and Tracy Morter on Wikipedia, a colleague wants its speedy removal. I have contested that and I have put a request to stop speedy deletion, because we want to save the page. I am suggesting that it is turned to an Afd and reach a concensus before final decision for or against deletion. I don't want to burden this page any further with discussion, but you can pitch in with your commenets, pro and con about saving the page Jon and Tracy Morter. It's much better than putting comments here. And you never know, this may result in a new grasroots campaign spearheaded by sympathetic Wikipedia editors to keep Jon and Tracy Morter in Wikipedia instead of dubbing them as non-notable individuals not worthy of a Wikipedia page. I consider this as an integral part of the campaign for "Killing in the Name". werldwayd (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also requesting useful edits to the Jon and Tracy Morter page with far more extensive relevant info pertaining to them and due references from published sources werldwayd (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Now thankfully "speedy deletion" has been reverted by another editor. And now we have an Afd request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_and_Tracy_Morter Please direct your comments there. Also still the request remains valid for help in developing the page. Let us make it a truly worthy Wikipedia page as testimony to their valiant effort. werldwayd (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"And you never know, this may result in a new grasroots campaign spearheaded by sympathetic Wikipedia editors to keep Jon and Tracy Morter in Wikipedia instead of dubbing them as non-notable individuals not worthy of a Wikipedia page." I bloody hope not, as that would be WP:CANVASSing and WP:MEATPUPPETry. Fences&Windows 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am just dismayed at the total ignorance of the efforts of Jon and Tracy Morter in the song page, I had added a due credit to them in intro and in the relevant section. These were immediately removed. When I reinstated the name again, once more they were reverted. It seems there is a clear effort going on to totally ignore their contribution as if the whole thing started just out of the blue and by nobody. Jon and Tracy Morter were instrumental in picking this specific song and none other. Without their contribution, this song would have never ever happened in 2009. Just for that, they need to be credited. Also for their efforts in keeping the flame through an incessant Facebook and Twitter campaign. Jon Morter has also emerged as the spokesman of the whole grasroots movement. Would Wikipedia be better off with not a single mention of the Morters? I dont want to reinstate the entry myself anymore as I know of the three-times rule. I cannot be seen as bullying any editors as well as an esteemed colleague is pointing out. But please see the relevance and reinstate the fact or otherwise discuss here why they should not be mentioned even once, which I consider a gross oversight werldwayd (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to see Jon and Tracy Morter mentioned in the body of the article, I think I removed their names from the intro because this article is about the song by Rage Against the Machine and I want to keep the emphasis on that rather than anything else.

I would be surprised if the Jon and Tracy Morter article survives the deletion processs. I expect they will delete the page, that just seems to be the way Wikipedia is going these days. I cannot argue strongly for keeping the page (I just don't want to see this page bulked out with details about them), but at the same time I don't feel a need to delete articles like so many other editors do.

Even if the article is deleted you can at least keep a copy in your userspace, something I'm doing more and more to avoid belligerent editors. When more details become available, or another campaign comes up then you can try again to get the article included. -- Horkana (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"First number one single on downloads only"

Not true - see this BBC story from several years back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"But under new rules, downloads can be counted as long as physical copies go on sale the following week"

I don't think this is a requirement any more... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. The fact remains though, that "Crazy" reached the number one spot based on downloads alone. So it is not accurate to state that KITN was the first song to reach the number one spot based on downloads alone. The correct thing to state would be that KITN was the first song to reach the number one spot based on downloads alone where there were no plans for it to be physically released at all. Only in a less wordy fashion :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right... "KITN was the first song to reach the number one spot based on downloads alone, with no physical release." Nouse4aname (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've had it pointed out to me that Leona Lewis' version of "Run" also got to number one without ever being released physically, so even my quote in bold above isn't true. I think what the news people are (badly) trying to convey is that KITN is the first back catalogue song to be picked up and reach number one due to downloads without any official form of re-release. Or something. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

On Radio 1's chart show Scott Mills described it as the first song to get to Christmas number one on without a physical release. I think the news people may have picked up on that incorrectly. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

Does anyone else agree that there is FAR too much emphasis on the Killing in the Name#Christmas Number One – 2009 campaign section? This is by far the largest section of the article, and is, theoretically, less important than the Killing in the Name#Song section (this is an article on the song, not the campaign). matt (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That the campaign successfully got the song to Christmas number one in the UK is a significant part of the song's history. If to adequately cover that aspect of the song's history means the section is larger than the Song subsection matters not in my view. I don't really see why this would be a problem. Adambro (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but I think in a week or two it should all settle down and we can clean it up without too much fuss. (We could clean it up now too but it's easier to wait and not fight other editors on it.) I've backed up what I think are some of the most important sources (like BBC, Rolling Stone, etc) and reuse the same reference to cover various items, I will try to further consolidate the article as I go but I would expect the campaign section will remain longer than the Song background and writing since editors will take the easy option and add newer information with abundant sources. -- Horkana (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sony PR operation

This article would be enhanced if it mentioned the criticisms and controversies surrounding the promo campaign for UK christmas number one.

1) Its obvious irony as an act of cultural subversion given the fact that both McElderry and RATM are on subsidiary labels of Sony / BMG. Profits from sales of this supposed cultural protest record will accrue to the same corporation promoting precisely that which it's ostensibly being contrasted against.

2) Allegations in the blogosphere that it was all a Sony / BMG PR campaign based on claims the ragefactor.co.uk domain name was registered to someone with the same name as a former Sony A+R man and business associate of Cowell's (Neill Ridley).

3) Does Simon Cowell have significant investment in Sony / BMG, and if so would he personally benefit from said alleged campaign?