Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nude picture

Who inserted a nude picture? Doesn't that violate something? It seems very unnecessary. Andraxx (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Gods! After much discussion, the editors of this article have decided overwhelmingly that the nude protest image belongs in the article. To review the discussion, see Talk:Rage_Against_the_Machine/PMRC. Regards, Skomorokh ^incite 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't violate anything Andraxx. Wikipedia policy clearly states that Wikipedia is not censored for taste or otherwise. Nudity is allowed. VanTucky ^talk —Preceding comment was added at 03:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it's awesome that Rage rock out with their cocks out. I knew they'd done some heavy protesting, but I didn't know about the PMRC protest until the penises jumped out at me in this article, haha. - Phorque (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can use Template:Hidden so the pic's shown only for people who want to see it (example). igordebraga ≠ 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed. The consensus of the editors is that it should remain the way it is. DTGardner (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And that is hidden for a more specific reason - as to not ruin the effectiveness of the test. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I stopped reading the article when i saw the nude picture, not a fan out dicks sorry, might want to use the side angle picture that most tv shows use that has there cocks covered. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.169.140 (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mate, that's tragic. Welcome to 2008. Seegoon (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing really wrong about nude pictures. Technically, it is info. The real problem is the idiotic perverts who make a big deal out of crap like this. Prepsear (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Against: the purpose of this page is not to emulate or replicate their stunt.

It should be removed. It is obscene, and portrays RATM in a bad light. You would not find anything like it except in a medical article. That, and it is part of a conspiracy to smear Rage. ~ Anonymous insider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.12.91 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? They're the ones who did it. As a protest. --Panzertök (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The nude picture is both unnecessary and unnecessarily vulgar in the context of today's "appropriateness" in most societies. More concisely, it is unnecessary because it adds nothing to the content of the article since the text already sufficiently documents this protest of RATM's. Unfortunate as it may be, this type of circumvention of censorship has turned Wikipedia into "just another porn website." It's good that respect for Wikipedia (and for those who continually support it) is minimal and diminishing in everything from academic to literary circles.

Das wunderbar (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all pornography, not in any way whatsoever. And yes, it does add content to the article - the claim of that the "text already sufficiently documents this protest" could be said about any picture on Wikipedia - text can easily describe it; instead the picture is visually showing the protest. It's not going to be removed and it's near worthless trying -- there have been many discussing on this subject and there is an overwhelming consensus to leave it as it is. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The nude pic shows what they did at the protest... and who cares if it's nude this is Wikipedia not MySpace... Tanner9461 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What's with all these homo's in denial trying to ban this picture? Just because you get a bit of movement in your pants when you look at it doesn't mean it is pornographic/inappropriate. Go read a book if you morons have nothing better to do.. The Muss (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's avoid the personal attacks. There is currently no chance that the images will be removed from the article permanently, and rightfully so. --Harald Khan Ճ 15:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the rules of wikipedia, I approve it. Sorry with my arguing on this topic, I was just making wikipedia a more orderly place.--F-22 Raptored (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination comments

The article is very close to being of good article status, but there are a few issues that need to be corrected:

• The introduction makes several statements that should be referenced, notably the entire first paragraph.
• There are a couple of grammatical errors, including the unneeded capitalization of some musical genres (e.g., Hip Hop instead of hip hop).
• There is no clear need for the image Image:Zach de la Rocha at 2007 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival.jpg, as a very similar image is in the infobox.

Kakofonous (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 5, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Definitely. Great use of quotes in particular.

2. Factually accurate?: The article was improve per my recommendations with citations in the lead and uses verifiable sources throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers the band very thoroughly, including excellent information about its political views (which could have easily been written with POV).

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Excellent image choices with appropriate fair use rationales.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Kakofonous (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words?

I don't like this: "He said that the Bush administration has started war on two fronts; he is destroying the communities in and around Baghdad and he is destroying the community and culture, notably African-American culture, within New Orleans."

Could we have a direct quote or at least better phrasing? --RaphaelBriand (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do completely without that being mentioned. I hate the length that section is going to. -- Reaper X 04:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How about...

"At the 2000 MTV Music Video Awards, RATM's "Sleep Now In The Fire" was nominated for best video, but lost to Limp Bizkit's "Break Stuff". As Fred Durst was giving his acceptance speech, Tim Commerford climbed a 15-foot set piece on top of the stage and rocked back and forth. Fred Durst reacted by saying that Limp Bizkit must be "without a doubt the most hated band in the world". Commerford later commented that the incident was just a joke, but nevertheless the incident prevented Limp Bizkit from playing live on TV. Commerford ended the night at the police station with his bodyguards."

This is (mostly) a translation of the MTV MVA section in the French Wikipedia article. There are a couple of good citations in the French section to back it up. I think it's a little better than the current one, which currently reads:

"At the 2000 MTV VMAs Tim Commerford climbed to the top of the stage set and nearly brought the left stage down, it in protest of the fact that Limp Bizkit, whose video was merely other celebrities lip-synching the words to the song "Break Stuff" in front of the band performing, won Best Rock Video instead of Rage Against the Machine's "Sleep Now in the Fire".

Anyone more Wikipeda-savvy is welcome to use this and change it as they wish. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You cant kill the revolutionaries not listed in any track

Why's this? --Blackguards_Light (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

...Noone knows? --Blackguards_Light (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, ill even post the lyrics to the song. --Blackguards_Light (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that the adding of lyrics to Wikipedia is a copyright violation. -- Reaper X 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Noone seems to understand. Fine, i'll end it. Blackguards_Light ^{//Evil turning good//}

We understand that the track exists. It's not clear that it's a RATM song rather than a Maynard James Keenan/Zack de la Rocha song. If it is, individual songs are not listed in this article, but please feel free to add the name of the song and information about it (not the lyrics) to Rage Against the Machine discography. Thanks, скоморохъ 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this song actually is a collaboration between the bands, not just the two lead singers. Sources: [1], [2], [3]. I'll add it to the disco. --LeakeyJee (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reunion section revisited

I refuse to start an edit war, so I think we need to discuss the reunion section again. Arnies reverted my edit with this diff here with the rationale that it's important because it's the first show outside of the US. However, I object 'cause I think it is OVERKILL. We know that de la Rocha is shitting on the Bush administration, and we already have a quote about his view that "They should be hung, and tried, and shot." Beyond this, it does not add to the article, especially when we have other parts of their career that could be expanded upon. I already mention that they have visited New Zealand, and so at the most I would add that it was at the Big Day Out, and it was their first show outside the US all in one sentence; there's no need for an entire paragraph. Thoughts? -- Reaper X 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. --Arnies (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. It's ridiculous that the reunion section is competing with the combined Early years and Mainstream success sections for length. I've removed the minutiae concerning ex-US shows. скоморохъ 20:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs disambiguation

"Rage against the machine" is a phrase deriving from the student movement at Berkeley; there is a serious historical inaccuracy to have the term direct to a band which used this term as its name, without addressing the term itself. KenThomas (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources? 202.81.18.30 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly what the anon said. Even if you provided a source, the band would most likley keep the main page - the phrase would (if it actually was notable enough) would have it's own disambiguation page. However, I'm guessing that it's not gonna' be anywhere near notable enough. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand disambiguation - it's purpose is to direct the reader to the appropriate article. As we do not have an article on Rage against the machine (phrase), or any other use of the term, there is absolutely no need for disambiguation here. See WP:DAB for further details. Regards, Skomorokh 01:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was a page for the phrase, and a disambiguation page was created, typing in "rage against the machine" would direct to the band anyway since they're far more famous and the vast majority of people typing that in would be looking for the band. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

they are at radio one weekend

the black guy on for scott mills just said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.153.238 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, please use a clearer statement. Also, if "that black guy on for scott mills" is
not a reliable source (which I doubt he is) it will not be added. Mr.Willison (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Band's wealth not up for discussion?

So these guys rail against greed ad nauseum, but no one can identify their greed? How many poor people are able to surf?

Where did all of the money from their success go? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.97.123 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If you want to improve the Wikipedia article on Rage Against the Machine, please find relevant content in reliable sources and include it. If you want to discuss the supposed "greed" of the band, I recommend you do so on a blog or message board: http://www.ratm.com and http://www.Vietnow.org are two such forums. Skomorokh 17:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

I'm getting a 404 at znet for:

1. ^ Tom Morello interviewing Noam Chomsky for Radio Free L.A. at Zmag.org

I'll try to find the page but perhaps someone else might know another source, or something. 159.134.232.211 (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found it on Chomsky's website. Could someone check that I have done the references correctly? I have never done them before. 159.134.233.225 (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

wtf?

it states in the 2nd opening paragraph:

"During the recording of Rage Against the Machine, Tom Morello was very sick and could not record, so they asked Matt Pearce, a well known guitarist to fill in for Morello. Pearce accepted, and he now also does live shows with Rage, as the lead guitarist."

now, excuse my french, but what the fuck is this? i am an avid rage fan, and as far as i know, no one by the name of matt pearce has ever contributed to their music. rage has always comprised of zack, tom, tim and brad, no one else. and from the numerous videos i have seen of them, morello has been the single guitarist. disappearing one.

Do we strictly need this (unsourced) sentence?

Rumoured vocalists at the time included Rey Oropeza of downset., Chuck D of Public Enemy, and B-Real of Cypress Hill.

I have been unable to find any source, and it is currently the only unsourced statement holding us back from featurehood. AutomaticWriting 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Blanket Policy"

I would love a citation for this. Where is it?! Damienzor (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lollapalooza 2008

can someone post the speech that zack made at lollapalooza during wake up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.125.62 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split

I tagged the "Political views and activism" paragraph of the article to be split into another article entitled "Political views and activism by Rage Against the Machine". I think that the section is big enough and notable enough to deserve its own article. Any other opinion or suggestions? Roger Workman (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SunCreator (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded.--PJDEP (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur WereWolf (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

LA Performance

I suggest integrating this: "SAVE THE DATE: Saturday, July 30 in Los Angeles Rage Against The Machine, Muse, Rise Against & More Stay tuned for detail" -first on Coachella's Facebook page and confirmed on http://www.ratm.com/ . I can't do it myself because I don't have an account!

Thank you (bump, if that even works)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.178.210 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello there! It looks like the edits were made by another user (see the bottom of the 2009-2010 section). However, you do not need an account to edit most articles on Wikipedia. That said, you may still want to get an account since it is free and will hide your IP address from other users when you submit edits such as the one above. Plus it gives other users such as myself a better handle to call you by than "69.183.178.210"; doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. =) --BBUCommander (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Could someone add all charity?

I know they've done a lot, but I think it'd be best to show what percentage of their personal wealth they've donated and what kinds of great causes they've furthered personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.100.92 (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This might be better placed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_and_activism_of_Rage_Against_the_Machine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.178.210 (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This information is hard to come by. I have never read any interviews where the band specifies their wealth or what portion of it they donate. --BBUCommander (talk)

Jonas Carlsen

I noticed this name mentioned once in the article as one of the members, but I can't find any information regarding Jonas Carlsen anywhere on the internet. Someone recently tried to removed it and their edit was reverted. Can someone provide a source for him being part of the band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.92.138 (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither can I, so it is likely a troll edit. Since the name no longer appears on the page, the issue seems resolved. Unless someone can provide a citation for this person, please revert any edits pertaining to this name. --BBUCommander (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

30 Songs For A Revolution

Is there a reason for why the compilation "30 Songs For A Revolutions" is missing from the discography? 89.0.100.51 (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that compilation. Is it an official or fan compilation? Could you provide a relevant link? --BBUCommander (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rage "against" the Machine?

I've a question that may sound ridiculous to some but I've been thinking about it for a long, long time. The thing is about the very name of the band and one word in particular -- against. You see, against is a preposition and in English those are written in lowercase, even in titles, band names and so on. This is true for e.g. such bands like Scars on Broadway or Fields of the Nephilim. So how comes that we write Rage Against the Machine? Shouldn't it be Rage against the Machine instead? It seems more logical to me but I refrain from moving the page as it may feel drastic to many and I'm still not sure whether I am right or not. Hope that some of you will resolve my doubts. --Jovaen (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hiatus?

The band has not been active since 2011, and following Brad Wilk's comment that the band played their final show at the LA Rising Festival (http://www.nme.com/news/rage-against-the-machine/77052), along with the comments from other members (http://www.nme.com/news/rage-against-the-machine--2/71494) that the band has no plans to perform live or record, I think that the article should state that the band is on hiatus. In the infobox, in the "years active" section it should have "on hiatus since 2011" in the brackets.--Milosppf (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)