Talk:Killing in the Name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

June 2006[edit]

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)[reply]

genre?[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lyric Change[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So much content to be recovered from old articles ... from other sites that copied from wikipedia I noticed this article a section Live performances (which explains some of the sentences oddly stuck on at the end of writing process) that only make sense in the context of lyric changes. Putting it here as it could do with a better citation. I think it would be best to change Writing process to just "Writing" and then include the note about different lyrics there. -- Horkana (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

Zack de la Rocha sometimes changes the lyrics in the second verse from "Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses" to "Some of those that burn crosses are the same that hold office" when playing live.
Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name Of on YouTube. Retrieved 2009-12-21. Acapella performance Live from the Republican National Convention 2009-08-02. Presented by Above-TheFold.com

Rage Against the Machine performed the song live in 1999 at the Woodstock '99 festival, burning the American flag during the song.
Killing In The Name (Live Woodstock '99) on YouTube. Retrieved 2009-12-21.

Cleanup[edit]

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)[reply]

Meaning of the lyrics[edit]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Lyrics aren't changed in Guitar Hero II[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Release Date[edit]

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)[reply]

serious ommission[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sound sample?[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Christmas Number 1[edit]

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

Been looking at various articles (primarily trying to get more background about alternative version of the lyrics but) The Guardian mentions, three celebrities who supported the RATM campaign: "Peter Serafinowicz who ... urged his 268,000-plus Twitter followers to join in"; Paul McCartney; and former X Factor winner Steve Brookstein.
This reinforces my opinion that McCartney is especially notable. As for the others (if we are going to note more than one person) the inclusion of Peter Serafinowicz suggests we may be missing/underestimating the importance of campaign being highly active on Twitter, which might also explain how Stephen Fry (a prolific user of twitter) and other comedians got a mention in that other article. Some of the celebrities who got on the bandwagon early might be notable. The endorsement of former X Factor winner Steve Brookstein might be more notable than, this years losers Jedward. So more clarity for McCartney, more confusion for the others. -- Horkana (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

Userbox[edit]

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)[reply]

"The campaign provoked commentary from political parties"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I changed the wording to "both groups" to avoid any further potential for confusion. -- Horkana (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon and Tracy Morter[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Now with Jon and Tracy mentioned in the section about the campaign, I am satisfied really, as we are giving credit where credit is due. I will take your advice about keeping a copy in userspace for later development. werldwayd (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decision was made by concensus and article was redirected to "Killing in the Name" article anyhow. Here is the discussion page for future reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_and_Tracy_Morter . If and when the Jon and Tracy Morter venture yet again on a new campaign, the whole discussion may give great leads as to whether they will be notable in the future with new developments. werldwayd (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First number one single on downloads only"[edit]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Came on here specifically regarding this, we all know its not the first number one from downloads alone, and it could quite feasibly be issued on CD or Vinyl in the next few weeks. The BBC article on the event makes the claim but its simply false in the sense its worded, I'm putting Christmas in the sentence, otherwise its a lie.(82.3.42.83 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

first ever download only christmas number one[edit]

Itwas claimed on radio 1 at the time that this was the UK's first everdownload only christmas number 1. Is this a notable point and doesanyone have any sources for it beyond the announcement on radio 1?130.88.108.187 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry ithad already been added since I last checked the article130.88.108.187 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this section up beside the previous section discussing ~ first ever download only number one ~ -- Horkana (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight[edit]

Does anyone else agree that there is FAR too much emphasis on the Killing in the Name#2009 UK Christmas number one 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree, but would suggest waiting until mid January. Both this and the main RATM article have similar issues. I've tried to keep the more enthusiastic elements in check on the RATM and Joe McElderry and The Climb articles I forgot to check this one, and it seems to be at least as bad. I have added the box that is already on the main RATM article suggesting undue influence by recent events. Also worth noting that 'undue weight' is being given on this talk page alone! There are several sections already devoted to various aspects of this campaign.. could use a clean up? Bertcocaine (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure what you mean when you say "Also worth noting that 'undue weight' is being given on this talk page alone! There are several sections already devoted to various aspects of this campaign." I do not see Talk pages as carrying any weight, it is the articles that should matter but if I understand you correctly I'm guessing you want to setup an archive bot so older discussions get filed away after about 30 days or so.
I could counter any undue weight criticisms with the fact that this campaign made the difference between this being a low charting song with a great riff and it being a widely known number one, so I'd argue more than half the article could be about the campaign and the weight would be entirely due and not without justification. Having said that I continue to make small rephrases of the article which I hope make it a bit less time specific and give a more encylopedic overview. I'm inclined to delete all the information about the betting and sales speculation, but perhaps someone could shorten that to just one sentence, as it is really just a corollary to the ongoing news coverage. At the moment there is tangled up in the betting commentary a some words of criticism from McElderry I would try to keep that was critical of the song and then soften it with his later more thoughtful and conciliatory comments, otherwise I'd have deleted the whole betting paragraph already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horkana (talk • contribs) 30 December 2009
How can there possibly be undue weight on a talk pages? And as for the article itself, the song was popular but never received a huge amount of coverage. The campaign, however, received significant coverage compared to every other aspect covered by the article. I think you misunderstand what the undue weight policy really means, it's about not expressing minority views, not sizes of sections. Rehevkor ✉ 21:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a tongue in cheek remark as the first section on this talk page relating to the topic at hand (Christmas Number 1 campaign) is so labelled; each of the subsequent sections could have been added to that section. The number of 'topics' in the index for this page is disproportionate to the relevance to the article - I thought this was amusing as it mirrored the 'undue weight' given in the article due to recent events. I was not seriously suggesting that talk articles can have undue weight! Bertcocaine (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sony PR operation[edit]

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.148 (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started watching this article after I saw it had no mention of both X Factor and Rage Against the Machine both part of the Sony and Bertelsmann Music Group which I added, someone sneakily deleted and I have now restored since you brought it to my attention. Thank you. The facts are presented for readers to draw their own conclusions, although you could say I was helping lead them to certain conclusions.
One of the references includes a quote where Tom Morello disputes claims "that their track reaching number one would benefit Simon Cowell as it is released by Sony Records" so again the speculation is mentioned while still keeping this article to a high standard. Perhaps we could emphasize it more but I'm happy enough with the article as it is now.
I expect it is a coincidence and Jon and Tracy Morter chose the Rage Against the Machine song without considering the unfortunate fact that SONY is very much the corporate machine but we need to avoid the silly speculation of and stick to reputable sources. -- Horkana (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 2 was speculation, and point 3 was synthesis. But there is this speculation in the blogosphere. I know that isn't a 'reputable source' but if it turns up in any 'reputable source' hopefully it can be mentioned. AFAIK speculation is not necessarily non-notable according to the rules of Wikipedia. I think many would find this sort of analysis much more interesting than a roll call of bandwagon jumpers that hyped the campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.148 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't do analysis but if you can find a good source that looks into the SONY issue in more depth I'd like to try and explain that bit better. I'm half expecting another article from theguardian.co.uk to show up.
As for the celebrity supporters that is something that will almost certainly be trimmed from the article, with the exception of a select few who are particularly notable. -- Horkana (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add something to this suggesting that all three points are speculation (point 2 'domain name was registered'?) until I thought to check on Rick Astley. Jon and Tracey Morter originally started the 'ultimate Rickroll' group which became the RATM 'backup' group when the main group went down; However when I checked the Rick Astley page I found that he is also signed (or was) to Sony BMG... I don't want to believe this conspiracy theory but as I don't personally know Jon or Tracey, I have admit the possibility! Not that I think this justifies entry into the article, I firmly agree with Horkana. Plus, it's not like there are that many big record companies, so the odds are not against this all being coincidental! Bertcocaine (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased slightly, the point about both being with Sony seemed a bit tagged on unfortunately. I added references for Tom Morello dismissing the conspiracy theories. Was unable to find a suitable reference for the Facebook group dismissing the theories, Facebook is not a suitable reference, maybe if i backed it up using WebCitation.org? Anyhow I include the quote below and perhaps someone can figure out how to properly reference a small part of it. -- Horkana (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q: BUT BOTH SONGS ARE SONY BLAH BLAH JABBER JABBER ETC... A: Yes we know...and? It wasn't an issue at all when I started this. The point is to have something else at the top as opposed to the same TV show scooping it again. Rage was a perfect choice, hence it went to No.1...we couldn't give a toss what label it's on . Get over it.

Charlie Brooker FTW: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/charlie-brooker-rage-against-the-machine
Trying to think of a decent excuse to include it in the article. Mentions the SONY wins idea again. If nothing else it does reinforce the earlier statement by Jon Morter that Cowell made it a lot easier by giving McElderry a rubbish song. -- Horkana (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cover versions/Trivia[edit]

Noticed an edit summary "pulling out the trivia, find a source, then bring it back" but "pulled out" means deleted, and out of sight is out of mind and so it is impossible to know if anyone is working to bring them back. If these items had been marked as citation needed or even moved to the talk page I might have been able to work on them. An especially cool funk mix by the Apples was deleted.
I'm including these items here and hoping other editors will help find sources and add them back to the article. As a happy side effect this might help balance the article back out including more things that are not about the Christmas number 1. If there are items you think are unsuitable for inclusion even with a proper citation and categorisation please add a comment. -- Horkana (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The supergroup Audioslave, which incorporated the instrumentalists of Rage Against the Machine, played the song at multiple shows.
    • As part of supergroup Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello incorporated instrumentals from Rage Against the Machine, and cover versions of Killing in the Name into their performances.
      • Chris Harris (2005-04-18). "Audioslave Performing Rage, Soundgarden Material At Shows. 'Black Hole Sun,' 'Killing in the Name' among songs played recently". Retrieved 2009-12-21.
      • Note: I did not include this as a cover version because there does not seem to have been any release of the tracks. The band shares 3 members with Rage so it doesn't seem right to include it under cover versions anyhow. Instead I included it in the live performances section.

So many months later an editor challenged this and removed it.

As previously stated above having released the song on an album seems pretty notable, which is more than can be said for live cover versions by bands such as Phish. Although User talk:Rehevkor did object below against 'Trivia on principle there was no comment about what level of notability we should require.

The edit summary of the deletion was "Red link band-not notable, rmv SPS source +citation needed)". WP:REDLINK is a very bad reason to delete something, lacking a Wikipedia article is a very poor standard of notability (it is a French band and this is English language Wikipedia).
Unclear what "SPS source" stands for.
I realise having it tagged {{citation needed}} might seem like a reason to delete it there was a comment indicating the intention that there should be more sources, to show more notability if possible. Again using the live performances by Phish as an example, it only verfies that it happened once and there is still nothing there to establish that it is actually notable?

I'd like some clarification on what level of notability editors thinks is necessary? I think mention of mention La Maison Tellier should be restored. I'd like to keep the mention of Phish but it really should tagged with citation needed and more done to reaffirm that it is notable. For example, did they play it more than just once, throughout that tour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horkana (talk • contribs)

I think independent coverage on the the covers is what's needed, simple as that. Removing an entry because of red link is valid in my eyes, specially when it lacks a source for notability (discogs doesn't cut it), we cannot presume the band is notable unless it has been established as such here. I have, however found a source for the entry (which I presume to be reliable), with that, I won't challenge it if it was re-added [2]. I think differentiating between studio and live is irrelevant - all that matters is what receives the coverage. I'm also unclear why you removed "notable" from the section heading, isn't finding the notable covers the point of the section - the rational to remove it because we'd have to have it in every section title makes no sense to me. Rehevkor ✉ 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly another [3] Rehevkor ✉ 01:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't think I'm particularly making the distinction between live and studio, I'm making the point that a performance they went to the bother of recording and releasing on an album is at least verified and is a bit more notable than a one off live performance. (Phish do at least make recordings available, but still I'd be happier if we had some indication this was more than just a one off. I'm not going to delete it even though I think it should be better sourced) The live performances from Rage of their own song only survive in this article because they were properly verified (and iirc we've some indication they are notable too) I'd be okay with mentioning other live performances but it's difficult to even WP:VERIFY them.
I generally avoid non-English language sources, they're hard for other editors to WP:VERIFY and this is English language Wikipedia but I'll take a look at those and before adding anything back (it won't be anytime soon though). If I include a choice quote that might help other editors. In retrospect I should have done a cheeky link to fr:La Maison Tellier (groupe) instead of leaving a red link. Not sure why I redlinked these guys but not any of the other smaller bands (or if it was another editor who added the redlink).
If we're strict everything is supposed to be WP:NOTABLE, putting it in the heading seems redundant. -- Horkana (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non English sources are fine (WP:NOENG), although English is preferred, but no English sources are available as far as I can find. Rehevkor ✉ 02:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now created La Maison Tellier (group). Notability is, admittedly, borderline, however. Rehevkor ✉ 16:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Icelandic band FM Belfast made a minimal electro cover called "Lotus".
    • In 2008 Icelandic electronica group FM Belfast released a single called "Lotus", a minimal electro cover version of Killing in the Name.[1]
      • Added back to article. Actually getting a release goes to notability. -- Horkana (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A remix of the track can be found in the film Step Up 2 the Streets, which the Maryland School of the Arts Dance crew perform to in the final dance-off scene in the film. The track is remixed alongside Timbaland's "Bounce" and "Money in the Bank" by Swizz Beatz. The track is not featured on the official Step Up 2 the Streets original soundtrack, but is none-the-less featured in the final scene of the film.
    • Not released on soundtrack album, doesn't seem particularly notable. Seems to have been included as part of a medley for a dance routine set in the rain. Lots of user comments about it but no good source to show notability.
  • Australian folk/pop singer Kate Miller-Heidke incorporates a short section of "Killing in the Name" into the musical interlude of her own song Words, in a rendition which features on her album Live at The Hi-Fi. Miller-Heidke is an opera-trained soprano and in this version she sings Tom Morello's guitar solo.
    • Only poor quality Youtube videos are available for this, but amazing to hear a guitar solo performed vocally by an opera singer. The article for Words doesn't have many sources. If that article included very short 10-15 second sound clip from the live album it would make things a lot simpler. Really want to put this back in the article even though the sources are not because it is musically very interesting.
Sourced trivia is still trivia.. regardless, I'd suggest some more secondary sources. Rehevkor ✉ 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Trivia is discouraged but allowed. These items were in a section titled "Other appearances" but it is a bit more varied than just that. Trivia and better off incorporated into the article in various places, and prose is preferable to lists. As I said above I'm looking for additional sources to help establish the notability of items. I've only just started the cleanup. It just seemed wiser to ask for help than put all this in the article and to have a mess of cleanpu and citation needed tags. -- Horkana (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong to just delete trivia without trying to find sources, or even asking for citations, it is unfortunate how many editors misunderstood the purpose of the WP:TRIVIA guidelines. I hope it is clearer now that some of what was dismissed as trivia was good information on cover versions, good information on live performances, and other uses of the song. Trivia is often just bullet point information that needs to be sources, written in better prose and categorized into a more relevant section than an unfortunate miscellaneous "Trivia" dumping ground full of vague stuff. With a bit of cleanup and putting things in their right place this makes helps make the article better. -- Horkana (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not News[edit]

Wikipedia aims to be an encylcopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. With that in mind I've removed the blow by blow account of the predictions in the run up to the number 1. They do show that RATM was the underdog, then ahead, then again X Factor was the favourite but there has to be a better way succinctly summarize the ups and downs of the campaign.
(It is interesting to note some of the earlier comments by McElderry about RATM but there are plenty of later comments that were less contentiousness and everyone was pretty magnanimous about the campaign setting it up as against X Factor rather than against McElderry or Cowell individually, but again that isn't especially encyclopedic.)
I also made efforts to shorten the list of celebrity supporters limiting it to Dave Grohl and Liam Howlett, as two prominent examples and then McCartney as both a notable example a counterpoint from someone loosely involved with the X Factor.
Oh and here's a link to a previous revision just a little before I started taking chunks out of that section. -- Horkana (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early commentators reported that "Killing in the Name" was favourite to win with most bookmakers having suspended betting, although some later reopened bettting.[2][3] Ladbrokes initially put McElderry as favourite on Sunday, switching to Rage Against the Machine on Wednesday and back to McElderry on Thursday.[3][4] After two days of sales, "Killing in the Name" was reported to be ahead, resulting in at least one major bookmaker re-opening its betting market for Christmas Number One.[5] Further midweek chart figures suggested "Killing in the Name" had widened the gap at the top of the charts. Industry experts expected the physical CD release of McElderry's "The Climb" would help provide it with a big sales boost.[6][7] On December 17, a representative of HMV said Rage Against the Machine were still ahead, but only by "a few thousand" copies and that McElderry had the momentum.[8] On December 19, the final day that sales were eligible for inclusion in the chart, NME announced that The X Factor single was outselling Rage Against the Machine by 11,000 copies. The same article included a statement from McElderry, in which he described "Killing in the Name" as "dreadful".[9]

  1. ^ FM Belfast - Killing In The Name Of (Lotus) (12") at Discogs
  2. ^ Robin Scott. "Music: Rage Against the Machine Second Favourites for UK Christmas Number 1". Daily Mail. Retrieved 2009-12-14.
  3. ^ a b "Rage Against The Machine swear on 5 live". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 2009-12-17.
  4. ^ Ben Cardew. "Xmas race goes to the wire". Music Week. Retrieved 2009-12-18.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Rage Against The Machine beating 'X Factor' by 65,000 sales in Christmas Number One race". New Musical Express. 2009-12-16. Retrieved 2009-12-17.
  7. ^ "Rage Against The Machine widen gap over X Factor's Joe McElderry". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-12-17. [dead link] Joe McElderry losing Christmas number one race to Rage Against The Machine
  8. ^ "Rage Against the Machine for Christmas No 1: The celebrities wade in". The Guardian. 2009-12-18. Retrieved 2009-12-18.
  9. ^ "X Factor's Joe McElderry brands Rage Against The Machine's 'Killing In The Name Of' 'dreadful'". New Musical Express. 2009-12-19. Retrieved 2009-12-20.

More covers[edit]

I'm not sure how notable a cover should be before including it. I think a song having been released is a good sign it is notable. A certain amount of press coverage too helps establish notability. I'm not so sure about unreleased live performances, but sometimes press coverage can be enough. I would really like to include the Soprano singer covering Killing in the Name because it think it is a very interesting interpretation but I don't think it meets the notability requirements. I'm including here some other cover versions which I don't think meet notability either but sources might become available later or they might become more notable.

I'd say kill the Teamfourstar one right out, I can't find anything that suggests the band is at all notable, never mind a cover (likely spam too). Deadmau5 may deserve a chance assuming the notability ref can be found, a YouTube link doesn't cut it. To be honest though, both are just covers to milk the X Factor thing and in a month will be totally forgotten about, they're not exactly significant covers in any way, would need some damn good refs to stay in my opinion. Rehevkor ✉ 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a look around myself, I was unable to find any viable sources for the Deadmau5 mention, at least those accessible through a Google search. Rehevkor ✉ 04:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to delete those from the article once I'd noted them here in case there was any question over the delete. Thanks for removing them. I'd say these two are unlikely to become notable but it seems only fair to give editors who make a good faith edit the chance to find proper references. -- Horkana (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chile[edit]

One or more editors has been adding claims that in Chile this song is sometimes performed with verses replaced with alternative lyrics. It is difficult to WP:VERIFY this and even harder to say if it is WP:NOTABLE. I mention it here as it seems to have been added in good faith. Perhaps it will be easier for readers who understand Spanish to judge the quality of the sources provided and possibly find better ones. For now the claim seems too dubious to include. -- Horkana (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yar. The Youtube link is way out as a source. The other I put through Babel Fish to get a minor understanding of it and it only mentioned the alt lyrics at the end with zero background on them. It seems to be some sort of blog so it'd be unreliable as a source anyway. Rehevkor ✉ 14:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell that in Colombia (and many other Spanish language countries, for sure), the line "Now you do what they told/taught ya" is often replaced by the Spanish phrase "Yo le chupo la chocha", which translates "I suck her p**sy". That, of course, has nothing to do with the original lyrics, but it's phonetically identical at first hearing. Of course, the change is made as a joke. Alvabass (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Killing in the Name Of[edit]

The article lead mentions the song is sometimes incorrectly listed as "Killing in the Name Of". The lead should summarize information in the article. This is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the article and there is no citation to back it up. It does help discourage misguided editors who try to "fix" the song title in the article but it shouldn't really be there and bothers me. (The presumptive use of the acronym RATM without having first having properly explained the long form Rage Against The Machine (RATM) doesn't help either.) I leave it for now but I'm looking for a second opinion, or maybe an editor who might want to find a citation to show this misinterpretation of the title is notable enough to mention somewhere in the article. -- Horkana (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also above section "Killing in the Name of" - correct title? Since when? -- Horkana (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More than a decade later people are still adding it back to the article without giving any good reason for it.[4] -- 109.78.207.105 (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube "sources"[edit]

I have removed a couple of Youtuve sources, per WP:SPS and quite possibly WP:ELNEVER. These sources are unreliable self published sources and the latter especially didn't seem to be the copyright holder of the video, these should never be used. A couple of these copyvio Youtube videos seem to have been inserted within other sources too, as for why I have no idea. Rehevkor ✉ 22:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to find a single source to both WP:VERIFY and also show something is WP:NOTABLE. The YouTube links seemed like a good way to WP:VERIFY and in most cases I took that once an album or song had been actually released it showed some basic level of notability. After edits I made elsewhere this was noted as WP:ELNEVER and I mostly accept that.
I'd appreciate if you could in some cases move the links to Talk and note that alternative sources are needed, or include some note to the effect that these items have been previously verified. It is nicer to have a link but it is not necessary, we have books, and magazines and journals referenced all the time and those sources cannot always be as easily verified as something with a link, so even if the link has to go it is still valuable to indicate these things were previously verified.
-- Horkana (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it is better to show than to tell, which is a big part of the reason I wanted to include links to things like the funk version of Killing in the Name by The Apples. After the reference to the article at Womad.org I wanted to make it clear why that article was particularly relevant, what I probably should have done noted was the article mentions Killing and the video has a brief sample of it and the band discussing it at 1:50. The Apples also link that same video interview from their myspace page.
If I had the time I'd take a 5-10 second sample and add it to Wikipedia directly instead to keep more strictly within rules but it seems like a lot of work for a small return. The BBC does include samples in their article though so I might add a note to the references to point readers in the right direction. (The way the BBC stream it I don't think {{External media}} would really work and that template is kind of bulky and ugly anyway. -- Horkana (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose linking to a copy of the song is useful but it's not really necessary, the aim is to verify and educate, readers are free to [legally] seek out these songs themselve. Uploading samples of these songs would push WP:NFCC a little, especially since they're not the direct subject of the article, we'd need considerable coverage on these versions of songs to justify samples. The RATM sample present already gives the reader enough of an understanding of the song. I'll try and give a longer response later but for now, it's a little past my bed time. Rehevkor ✉ 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(But saying that, I have no problem with linking to the songs, as long as copyright is considered.) Rehevkor ✉ 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Sabrina[edit]

I cannot find a single scrap of information to verify this, it seems highly unlikely that such a song would be used in a children's show as well. Smells fishy, anyone else? Яehevkor ✉ 15:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: claim that Killing in the Name featured in episode of Sabrina.
Possible but unlikely. Would be more plausible if any episode or specific context had been given like the usage in Skins. -- 93.107.76.37 (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New lines etc edit war[edit]

This edit war is pretty lame. But as a frequent editor, the most common reference formatting found in nearly every article, and the formatting that makes editing articles easier, is the one without so many new lines. Яehevkor ✉ 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is growing and citations have not been filled and are in need of more details and still do not have archiveurls then I think newlines make it clearer there is more work to be done.
On a stable article (which admittedly this is) I grudgingly accept that some editors prefer not to have long format citations and that removing line breaks might be appropriate, especially if editors are making good faith efforts to check details and improve the article, not just making drive-by formatting changes.
I do strongly object to spaces being removed. Most editors understand the benefit of nicely formatting the Infobox with spaces. Some editors do not like putting spaces in their citations, I don't expect them to if they don't want, nor do I expect them to strip all the spaces from an article just because they prefer it. They should still respect rules like WP:CITEVAR and not impose their style on article.
I know User:Rehevkor has actively edited this article over a long time, and if User:Rehevkor removes line breaks I will not revert those edits. I would encourage him to double check that citations have details such as date and author properly filled out and to also consider adding archiveurls if possible, as that would further improve the article and remove much of the need to actually read or further check any of those citations.
Please though, do not remove the spaces. I am not a Perl programmer. -- 109.76.224.250 (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm rather busy so must be brief. I'm happy to go through the citations when I have time - although I'm on the fence about adding archive URLs. Anything that's archived on Wayback Machine now should still be there if the original links go down - so there's no rush. For anything that's not, WebCite is the go to service for that, I've not used it before but am willing to give it a go. But it may not be available for much longer - they're currently running a funding drive in order to survive. Яehevkor ✉ 10:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling single on Amazon UK[edit]

Amazon have released sales charts for various sections and for the mp3 section, Killing in the Name of, is the best selling single, here is a source http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/mamma-mia--beats-harry-potter-to-amazon%E2%80%99s-bestselling-dvd-ever-154132631.html I'm going be bold and just add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technotopia (talk • contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eah.. I'd say it shouldn't be there. Per Wikipedia:BADCHARTS#Deprecated_charts charts of individual sellers (like iTunes) aren't really used. And it's not the best selling MP3 of all time, just the best selling on the UK Amazon.. so only really covers a small section of the world anyway. Яehevkor ✉ 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will remove it then Technotopia (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness of Greed[edit]

This article lists the runtime for "Darkness of Greed" at 4:09. I don't think that's accurate. Charles Essie (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Killing in the Name. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Killing in the Name. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 08:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Killing in the Name. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"full uncensored version"[edit]

When you mention the "full uncensored version" in the controversy section, that seems to imply that there is a censored version. The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule when you might expect writers/editors to explain first that it is censored before talking about the uncensored version, but in this case they are not referring to some other version. The article does explain already explain that the song is full of swear words, but I suppose one might rephrase it slightly to clarify that the song is frequently censored, the swear words bleeped-out or otherwise omitted, if it gets airplay at all.
In the context of the quoted text the point seems to be that the DJ played the song in full, and it in it's original and unmodified form. You could change it and adjust it slightly if you really don't think it reads clearly enough. The smallest least invasive simple change I might do, would be to delete the word "full" because the detail that he played the song in it's entirety is not so important. (The next clause explains that he was doing something else while the song played, so there's no suggestion or implication that he only played part of the the song.) But I'll probably leave it as is. -- 109.78.207.105 (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden text pollution[edit]

I have removed the following hidden text from the page. It should not have been made a permanent part of the article.

<!--<ref name="bbc5live-youtube">{{youtube|SfZGUdcBBLc|Rage Against The Machine – Killing In The Name Live on BBC Radio 5 Live Video Full and Uncensored}}.{{Retrieved|access-date=2009-12-21}} </ref>Self published Youtube video, uploader does not have rights to publish, copyright violation and we can't use this per WP:ELNEVER-->

BD2412 T 06:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rage Against The Machine – Killing In The Name Live on BBC Radio 5 Live Video Full and Uncensored on YouTube.Retrieved 2009-12-21. Link no longer works anyway, it has been marked as private and cannot be accessed.
I think I was the one that commented that out. I'm not sure why I didn't just remove that entirely, but I was probably reluctant to delete anything and trying to make it easier for skeptical editors to WP:VERIFY the facts of the matter. It was overdue for removal so thanks for that. -- 109.77.200.112 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Cover image[edit]

In approximately 2021 the Infobox image was changed for no apparent reason. The famous image of a buddhist monk setting himself on fire was replaced with a different cover image, a red line drawing on a white background. If any reason or explanation was ever given for this change was ever given I cannot find it. There should have been at least a discussion before it was changed and preferably consensus for any change.

The famous original image that was used before (see this archive copy "Killing in the Name") needs to be restored. -- 109.77.200.112 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_in_the_Name&oldid=1207975993"