Talk:Rage Against the Machine/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I know its been discussed, but lets be realistic.

Look guys, posting pics of male genitals on a website without a age-restriction filter is actually against teh law here in the USA. I know RATM was trying to make a point, and that this whole thing is about their political views, but Wikipedia doesn't need the whole frekaing family-values movement suing it in court for posting adult-material on a website without an effective child-restriction service! I'm taking it down. It violates Wikipedia's own standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Vandalism Paladin Hammer 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Every state in the US prevent persons under the age of 17 from viewing adult material, and websites have to have age-restriction software to prevent them from viewing it. Wikipedia has no such software, so the pic goes, or Wikipedia will someday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paladin Hammer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The human body is "adult material"?!!! Skomorokh ^incite 12:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the description say enough? Look at Ozzy Osbournes article and where he bit a birds head off, we don't have a pic of that. Its quite unnecessary. The next time it goes up, I'll be placing a few calls to the wikipedia foundation. This is a private company that owns the site, and they'll be more than happy to lock the page if it means saving their asses from a lawsuit. Paladin Hammer 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please remember to sign all talk posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~

You are incorrect, both speaking legally and in terms of Wikipedia policy and content. Please see the preceding discussion currently on this talk page, in the archive, and at WP:NOT#CENSORED. Most importantly, Wikipedia uses consensus decision making. Previously there has been a strong majority consensus to keep this image, and before removing it you must gain a new consensus through discussion with other users on this page. Thank you VanTucky ^Talk 20:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After 3 discussions, I think it would be more realistic to let it go. This doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. -- Reaper X 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to make Reaper's argument. Also, please see WP:LEGAL - no legal threats, please. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States

Do we have pics on articles regarding Pornographic films depicting the nudity in the films? No. You didn't even read Wikipedia's own rules regarding nudity (see: last post). And I know, because its on every adult website such as youporn, pornotube, etc, that sites depicting nudity have to have age restriction software. Your going to get the Wikipedia Foundation in a lot of trouble. I'm not threating Wikipedia, parent groups will though. Paladin Hammer 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's some state rules regarding web-pased nudity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States Paladin Hammer 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html . Schools don't block wikipedia, neither do libraries. But, according to said law above, they have to block any content that displays nudity. Wikipedia isn't, and when they find out, there will be hell. I'm not threating you, I'm warning you, for your own sake. Paladin Hammer 06:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this. Please carry your discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That is the proper place to discuss your issue. This is a discussion page for the Rage Against the Machine article, not policies. -- Reaper X 13:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm discussing your violations of law. You guys aren't above it. And if you try and make Wikipedia above it, its only a matter of time before someone reports it. No, I'm still not threatening you, I'm warning you about the consequences of your actions. Paladin Hammer 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, you guys keep saying it "only offends a few people". Then how come it keeps getting brought up? If only a few feel offended, it would have died, but it hasn't. The picture has no value to the article anyway. We clearly get the idea by reading the text. Therefor, the pic is completely unecessary. Paladin Hammer 19:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Paladin, this discussion is over. But I don't mean to sound disrespectful. This issue keeps getting brought up by those "few people", and then swamped by the concensus to keep it. This is not going to change, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. Now if you want to continue discussing what you allege are "violations of law", take it to the village pump.
I can't make it any more clearer. By our policies, the image stays. If you disagree with our policies, this isn't the place to talk about it. Now please move on. Either raise you issue at the village pump, or drop it. Thank you. -- Reaper X 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what Reaper has said. Paladin, the legal issue is clear here. It is perfectly legal to include adult content on Wikipedia anywhere we like. The site has been up for years now, and not once has the Foundation been sued over nudity or sexual content. There has just recently been a RFC on this issue, and the consensus clearly dictates that we keep the image. To the rest of us, I suggest we quit feeding the trolls. VanTucky ^Talk 05:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

got rid of the nudity

we can talk 'bout it in simple next, no need to look at one's penis, OKAY?

Wikipedia is not censored for children. The impact of the protest is largely lost without the image, and the description does not convey the event very well. Sorry, but I'm reverting. --Switch 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^ The purpose of this wikipedia entry is NOT TO REPRODUCE OR EMULATE the effect of the protest, but to provide an encyclopedic overview of RATM, simply saying they are outspoken, and listing this protest as an example is enough. - Mariokarter

just blur the nads

I agree, Someone should do that

The picture could also be linked to, because it is not very safe for work.

Someone took down the picture again. Put it back up. If they think nudity is in violation of the policy, look up vulva. Fucking up close shots of pussy.

Well said, this is almost like saying it's ok to see lesbians kissing but not gay men. I don't exactly want to see it, although I don't really care, I just turn off images on firefox whenever I know someone would see the page. The point is, Wikipedia is clearly not censored, as defined by the rules, and the picture is very useful in providing the proper impact. There's no reason a penis needs to be considered taboo.

I expect to see or possibly see some NSFW material when searching vulva. I dont expect it when searching a band. Its not a matter of censorship its a matter of it adding nothing to the article.

It does add to the article. Without the image, the impact of their protest is lost. It's like changing the Weather Underground article to simply say "A riot took place". It's not informative, and it isn't representative of the events as they happened. --Switch 08:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat ironic that this discussion exist. You see, Rage Against the Machine is a band with many views. However, one of their most prominant vendettas, is one against censorship. And what some of you are suggesting, is censoring this page. If you have any respect for this band, and what they tried to accomplish, the very least you can do is give the public the un-censored, un-polished truth. I cannot think of a worse insult to these people, than censoring their own journey. I am ashamed of some of you... --Mike

I love you Mike. Well said. WarringSerenity 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against censorship, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go around posting pictures of penises in places where they're in no way relevant.

That's not a picture of penises. It's a picture of the band members nude at a protest that gained a great deal of coverage in the press.

I think it should just be linked to, like someone suggested earlier

One thing that many RATM fans and some of the people on this board seem to forget is that "censorship" and "self-control" are different things. Having the freedom to do something doesn't mean that I have to do it just to prove I can. So while the image is not technically against wikipedia policy I think it's extremely bad taste to have it up there (at least in its current form). There you go - I'm a capitalist pig.

I don't believe those from RATM would care much whether wikipedia censored the images of their tiny penises waving in the cold. Their contempt for censorship is well known and, if we are going to be objective about this article, we shouldn't have to consider morals and "the legacy of their fight against censorship" at all. Not knowing the rules and their technicalities well enough I wouldn't say whether to blur/remove the image, but keeping it there in order to "pay respect" to Rage would simply be silly. There are many types of censorship. The Car 05:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Censorship is censorship, whatever form it takes. Ask yourselves; would you object to a photo that didn't 'add' to an article if it didn't contain nudity? And to Mike: Well said, man! 86.1.99.205 22:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What struck me about that section is not the nudity but that supposedly some members, no pun intended, of the band are so self conscious about their penises that they fall into that propaganda about size to the point that they think it necessary to justify their size in that picture as being the result of the cold. I thought RATM were better people and would be more concerned about the content and substance of their brains and message than about physical appearance or penis size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.21.112 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

How about a "NSFW" warning prior to linking to page?

I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia is not censored anyway. If the picture offends you, that's your issue. --Steve Farrell 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What reason is there to include them and there little cocks naked? Writing about the event is enough, the visualization is redundent and offensive. Where is the self control? Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesnt mean we should include it. I don't see a picture of Paris hilton or kim kardasian giving fellatio on there pages. Manic Hispanic 06:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If that were the point, we would have to get rid of every nude picture on Wikipedia. As far as including nude pictures goes, this is indeed encyclopedic, far more so then many other nude pictures on this site - it shows the protest in action; as that is what it is - a protest. And it is irrelevant that it is offensive. The "Nigger" article is offensive to thousands, I've seen people blank it because it's "offensice", but in both cases it doesn't matter - becausae they are encyclopedic and they stay. ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{//The Forest Whispers My Name//} 09:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To Manic, pretty bad example. Nudity does not equal pornography. Some dudes standing on stage naked is quite different from pornographic pictures of women giving some guy head. It doesn't get any more simple than that. Wikidan829 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The image in question should be available with a link (Maybe an article about the event, too?) rather than being shoved in the faces of every reader.

One user wrote: "One thing that many RATM fans and some of the people on this board seem to forget is that "censorship" and "self-control" are different things. Having the freedom to do something doesn't mean that I have to do it just to prove I can. So while the image is not technically against wikipedia policy I think it's extremely bad taste to have it up there (at least in its current form). There you go - I'm a capitalist pig."

For you to decide that it is in bad taste is censorship. Because it is not the belief of everyone that it is indeed in poor taste. If you have a problem with the human body, that is your issue to deal with. The picture should be shown in full, because it accurately describes the event. In fact, on first viewing I thought the band themselves had attached black boxes to the bottom part of there bodies; and that's not what I should be thinking when I see this. There is nothing wrong with a picture of a penis on a wiki, as long as it is not of a sexual nature it is perfectly fine. 121.210.28.111 08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a picture that does not belong here. Penises go on the Penis page, Vaginas go on the vagina page. I don't like nudity, although the human body is beautiful. I won't protest the vagina on the vagina page, that is encyclopedic. But this picture does not belong here, unless it is blurred or black barred, which I've done thrice (unsuccessfully). Welcome to Wikipedia, the Indecent Encyclopedia. --Meaneager 03:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Penises go on the Penis page, Vaginas go on the vagina page, Rage Against the Machine PMRC protests go on the PMRC protest subsection of the Rage Against the Machine page. See what I did there?Skomorokh 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of funny that you are trying to censor them, when they were protesting against censorship. There is nothing sexual about it. There is nothing wrong with it. It is an encyclopedic picture that shows total relevance to the page. Just because you seem to be uncomfortable with sexuality doesn't mean we have to blur it out. That's simply absurd. You don't rent a movie, not check the ratings, and complain because there was some titties in it. With all the profanity in their lyrics and such, you're upset because they let their Frank and Beans hang out? C'mon. Wikidan829 04:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a picture that is inappropriate to the topic. I'm removing it, it breaks wikipedia rules. It isn't supposed to contain nudity, it ruins the article. Showing pictures of the event aside, it should be blacked out or removed completely. It's not an appropriate picture for the article. Put a link to the picture if you have to, but don't have it in the article itself. Would you put it on the front page of wikipedia if ROTM happened to become a featured article? User:Reapermage1990 18:40 10th May 2007 (GMT)

It is not breaking Wikipedia rules in anyway, and it is relevant to the topic. The protest they staged is mentioned in the article, and this picture has clear encyclopedic purpose, as it is showing the protest mentioned. Wikipedia is not censored, and this picture has a rightful purpose. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in answer to your question, if RATM became a featured article, and the nude pic was the picture to represent it, I would be proud that some people are mature enough to overcome the fact that it's nudity, and put it up there. I would feel happy that the fact that some people may be offended is overcome by respect for it's encyclopeic nature. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen! Wikidan829 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too true. And like I've said before, this whole preoccupation with nudity is very much an American thing, and wikipedia is trying to reflect the views of the world, not just America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.210.28.175 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

It kind of sickens me that so much of this talk page was used for this topic. It's not an argument of the article, it's an argument over the dislike of Wikipedia policy. Since it was thoroughly discussed, can we take a poll and get this issue put aside once and for all? Thanks Wikidan829 02:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because a poll would be ridiculous in itself. This isn't worthy of a poll, as the picture is not against any Wikipedia policy and is clearly encyclopedic. Now it's a matter of personal taste, which in iself breaks the NPOV rule. ≈ The Haunted Angel 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... even better. Can I archive these discussions? Wikidan829 13:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of this needs archiving. Go for it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

band members naked.

I am a fan of RATM, but i got a shock when i saw the pic of them naked on wikipedia. Can we please change the picture to something more tasteful ? Its quite a shock to see it. andrewkeith80 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but if you find "shocking" the appearance of a naked man (or four), you have a problem. --Taraborn 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't some publicity stunt. In the words of Jose Marti - 'doing, is the best way of saying'.

If you find it quite a shock to see it, then why are you a fan of a band who's songs have lyrics such as FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL me repeated 16 times. Now if that's not shocking then I don't know what is. And noone said you had to click on it. Just skip past it when you read this article.

"Fuck" is auditory, four naked men is visual. There is a difference. This problem can easily be solved by making a link to the picture, seeming some want to take it down, and others want to leave it up. That way, those who want to see four naked men can click on the link, and those who just want to read about their political beliefs don't have to wonder what those behind him/her are thinking. I would do this myself, but I am not fluent with wiki coding. Lovok 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, in case the previous arguments come into play, an encyclopedia is not a place to make statements, it is a place to document them. We do not need to feel the impact, but we are entitled to know to what extent it hit. Lovok 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That very picture was published in Rolling Stone magazine. They didn't publish the picture because they felt their readers wanted to see four naked men, but because the picture illustrates the text. Rolling Stone is not Playgirl magazine. The picture is used in this article for the same reason. However, unlike Rolling Stone, Wikipedia is not censored and so the picture can be depicted without black boxes over the genitals.

It is perhaps revealing that all anyone opposed to this picture can fixate on is the penis. If Wikipedia isn't a place for making a statement, then it is equally not a place to try to impose one's dislike of the depiction of the penis on to others. (Click on the link to the penis article and see that the penis is displayed in many different states.) The picture is not pornographic or sexual in any context.

There is more on display in that picture than the penis. These guys were not standing there fully clothed with their pants unzipped and their genitals hanging out. They were completely nude. It's called a nude protest.

Less talk more walk. If it's going to be changed, someone change it.

It has been changed. Repeatedly. And, in accordance with proper procedure, it has been reverted every time. The image will not be removed because a few prudes dislike having the chance to look at a penis when they're reading about an angry anarchist rock band who were almost stopped from performing in various cities due to their provocativeness. --Switch 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an honest question. Where does it say children are not allowed on wikipedia?

Nowhere. However, it is clearly stated that wikipedia is not censored for children's benefit, as the content disclaimer says: Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy. --Switch 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Children don't have penises?

I'm fairly sure I did. --Switch 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In this circumstance, we should exercise prudence. Wikipedia is not censored and the image is directly relevant to the content of the article, and its inclusion is therefore appropriate. I am a little hesitant for everything to be immediately visible, as many of those visiting the page are not familiar with the protest and may find the image a bit of a shocker (especially those visiting Wikipedia in a public setting or at work). A sensible blurred image with a link on its page to an unmodified version seems a reasonable compromise. BAKirken 06:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any allowance in Wikipedia policy for blurring an image because it's "a bit of a shocker". If the reality is relevant, we should depict the reality.

Look, this is a band that's famous for shouting over and over, "Fuck you I won't do you what you tell me." Yet people reading about this band are going to be shocked by seeing images of penises that are what, five pixels long? The continuing hubbub over this question makes me think what a brilliant protest this was. Nareek 13:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh...you know guys, high schoolers at some times may be asked to do research on some sort of politics or censorship. Let's say their paths cross into...yes, Rage's music. Now, what would the school do to our poor student trying to get a good grade when he attempts to get some info or find some basic info about Rage based on wiki? Why, the school finds out about him looking at a naked picture and *gasps* suspends him. It's best to remove the picture. Maplejet 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Wikipedia is not designed for high school students. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. ~Switch ^{t c g} 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh....I tend to agree that the image isn't doing enough good to justify its inclusion. I've been known to browse Wikipedia at work (actually, pretty much the only time I do it), and that sort of image really isn't what you want showing up in your cache. I've seen a grown man naked. I can certainly imagine how terribly shocking it would be for four men to crudely paint their chests and stand around not playing music on a big stage at a concert. Let's remember that we're not here to further any political message that the band might have had, but just to report on it. An understanding of the facts of the incident does not require an intimate understanding of what Zach de la Rocha looks like without pants.Cool moe dee 345 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't even have to argue its merit; this is Wikipedia. The rules are clear. If you're worried about what's in your cache, then don't browse a site that is openly not censored - or, better, delete the image from your cache (I don't know what network your company uses, but it's probably quite easy). The image was reproduced in Rolling Stone, shown on MTV, it's been everywhere. It's likely the most important image of them we have. This is not even an issue. ~Switch ^{t c g} 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with switch, the photograph illustrates the protest better than text would. If you're worried about the image in your cache at work, you probably shouldn't be browsing wikipedia at work. It's interesting to note that they were protesting censorship for the sake of "the children", which is part of the rationale for removing it now. maxcap 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I think you're mistaking the Helen Lovejoy Motivation ("won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!??") with a simple argument from common decency. Most folks aren't interested in looking at undressed people unless there is a very good reason. I'm not concerned about protecting or not protecting children, but rather with the fact that the picture, so far as I can tell, adds absolutely nothing to a wholly verbal description of the event. It's very difficult, of course, to establish that at this point, since it's sitting there right in front of us, but think about it this way--would you include, were they available, images of George Michael's genitals in his article? Or what about pictures of Michael Jackson's penis? They're both at least ostensibly famous, in some part, for things involving their genitalia. The central question for me is still whether actually SEEING naked people in any way enhances my understanding of what four naked men standing on a stage would signify. You don't have the crowd in the shot reacting to it, so you're not capturing the impact of the event in any literal sense. The only defense you can mount for the picture, if challenged, is that it allows the reader to experience the event for himself. That seems pretty weak to me. I just don't understand how the image provides a benefit commensurate to the inconvenience of having to mount this occasional (but apparently repeated) defense for what is essentially a trivial picture illustrating an event that doesn't rise to the peak of my imagination when I think of "Things That Define Rage Against the Machine."Cool moe dee 345 17:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is still not an issue. Wikipedia is not governed by "common decency" or anything of the sort. There is no argument to be had here. As said above, this is not a public forum for you to force your dislike of the depiction of the penis onto others. If you think that tha is not a major event in the band's career, you can try to have the entire section removed - but, as it is around the most famous event in their career, you'll have a hard time with that. ~Switch ^{t c g} 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what's wrong with showing the human body as it is to children. I really don't find it any more "offensive" -whatever that means- than, say, going to the zoo and seeing naked animals. Except, maybe, because of conservative, irrational taboos imposed eras ago. Also, showing the members of the band protesting naked makes a statement about their attitude towards society rules. Christophe Lasserre 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Censoring the picture is the height of irony. I don't think it's fair for someone else to decide what is ok to view and what isn't. "bad taste" doesn't come into it. This is merely documenting an important momment in RATM's history. This whole hang up about nudity is really more of an American thing anyway, and does not correctly reflect the views of most of the world (which is what wikipedia is trying to reflect), where nudity in the media is much more acceptable. 121.210.28.111 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a need for discussion (User_talk:Meaneager#Your edits to Image:Lollapaloozaratm.jpg), 2 thoughts, taken from Wikipedia:Profanity:

"should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."
"In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all"

So let's try to reach a consensus regarding the first point which solves the second. If we include the picture, we include it unaltered. An alternative would be e.g. an picture of their naked butts or one taken from greater distance or something similar ;) --Johnnyw talk 12:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed

am i the only person disturbed by the naked photo in the article. I mean its an article and not very appropriate for this site

Wikipedia is not censored. Read the content disclaimer. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - I think a typical Wikipedia would find the image reasonably offensive and unnecessary, and a suitable alternative would of course be a simply cencored version of the same image, and the omission of penises in this article would not cause it to be any less informative, unless of course you visited the article on Rage Against the Machine with the sole purpose of finding the size of said penises. --LeakeyJee 13:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not as if the picure is showing a sexual act, all it is is four naked men on stage. Look about the site, and you'll find many other pictures. How people can be offended by the sight of the human body is beyond me. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I can be offended with the human body. I wouldn't want to see my neighbors naked. That would offend anybody. Anyways, though I could care less if the image was on the article or not, it really doesn't inform us much. All I get out of it is "RATM stood naked somewhere," not, "Oh wow, look at these people and their political beliefs." There really is no point to it in the article. IronCrow 03:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Nude art is fine, this is not. Wonder why......its bands like this that point out such hypocrisy in this crazy ass world we live in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roguestate (talk • contribs) 18:25, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

So your saying the image is in the article with the sole purpose of it being to "cause offence"? In that case it should certainly be removed - and I am going to do so. --LeakeyJee 04:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to make this very clear.

The image is of a notable incident in the history of the subject of this article.
No suitable alternative images to depicting this incident are available.
A censored version of the image would not be a suitable alternative because it would not depict the incident accurately.
As the incident was of an entirely visual nature, removing the image would cause the article to be less informative.

Ergo the image stays. Skomorokh ^incite 04:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with LeakyJee. I don't believe removal of the image would make the article less informative when a written description would explain the exact nature of the protest. Lb34 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very informative; it summarizes the section into one image. Not to mention it invokes interest. I know when I first saw it, I said "WTF?!" out loud, and immediately started reading the section to find out why they did it. -- Reaper X 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Reunion section

Okay, I think this is getting a little out of hand. I don't think we can add anymore quotes to the Reunion section. I reverted this last addition primarily because we already have a quote of de la Rocha slamming "those fascist motherfuckers at the Fox News Network". But I'm still concerned and I need to say this.
I think we need to start being selective of what's included, or this section may become a coatrack because it is nothing but a collection of de la Rocha's words in order to make a point that what the Bush Administration has done is wrong, which isn't very neutral, especially considering this is an article about a musical band. Even though this is what RATM is basically all about here in 2007, we have other stuff to cover.
To remind some and make notice to all:
if you came here to carry de la Rocha's words to the Wikimedia community, go to Wikiquote and have a field day. If you came here to help carry the band's message, you came to the wrong place to do it. Opinions or original thought don't mean jack squat on an encyclopedia built on facts, go use a blog.
Besides that, I think the section is okay for now. -- Reaper X 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I added in de la Rocha's latest speech from the Alpine Valley show. Though in the past speeches haven't been included in the article, I still feel the speeches (the latter two which I transcribed) are relevant to the topic of the Reunion tour, as they have been the primary outward focus of the shows. If the consensus is to delete them, will you make sure to move them to Wikiquote before deleting it completely? At some point they probably should come down and be replaced by a description blurb but seeing as this is a developing story (follow-up speeches with common subject matter), it may be prudent to leave them up until we get more information as to the possibility of a reunion tour. Then clearly they will need to be retired to Wikiquote because it's simply impractical to keep all of his speeches on the page. Still, I regularly check the page for developments and so I imagine many people are enjoying reading the latest word from the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.60.208 (talk) 01:51, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I still have an issue with this section. IMO, the last 2 speeches should be removed and summarized with "De la Rocha made subsequent speeches at two Rock the Bells shows critisizing the Iraq War." It makes the article too long. The speeches that caused a feud with the "fascist Fox network" are notable enough, but the band has made comments critisizing the U.S. throughout it's existence. In response to 68.157.60.208, relevance to the topic of the Reunion tour is illustrated well enough by the first speech. We don't need them all. Objections? -- Reaper X 18:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose this diff] to the reunion section. Any objections should be made with good reason, because I think this is quite resonable. It cuts the article down by 4.1kb, makes the section more focused, and a wikiquote link is there for those who are interested in anything else de la Rocha said. -- Reaper X 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going ahead with it after no response. -- Reaper X 17:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

DO we need that naked picture?

Really, I mean, I was doing a school report on the band, and I went down and my teacher saw the pic of the band naked and told me I wasent aloud to do the report anymore, thats not really fair... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.119.35 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been dicussed over and over, yet it still remains. I believe it is an example of WP:SNOW, and therefore warrants no further discussion. -- Reaper X 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you ever have children you may change your mind, but as your profile says, you're just a teenager.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

-RATM fan and parent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.158.82 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Do you have any quotes or references from Aristotle or The New York Times regarding the difference between censorship and restraint?

I think most adults would rather not see four sets of male genitals if they weren't expecting it, if they just wanted to learn more about a band. A link would suffice.

You can site all the wikidocu-garbage you want, but it doesn't change the fact that ever since I've seen this photo up here there's been someone saying, "Is that really necessary?"

I agree you have every right in the world to have it up here, but should you? Would it really take any amount of information from the piece to simply have a link?

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

-RATM fan and parent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.158.82 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Eh sorry guys, didnt see the other one about the picture... And besides..All I was doing was making a bio on them and I wanted to learn more about what they protest against...and I scrolled to far down. Im going to remove the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.119.35 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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

People come to this site to learn about this band. They are not prepared to see a nude photo. If they were going to learn more about the female vulva, they would be prepared to see some nude pictures. Would putting a link take away from people learning and understanding the protest? I don't think so. Your not even censoring the photo. You're just saying: I understand people aren't coming here expecting to see a naked picture of four people protesting. If they want to learn more about it through this picture, here is the link. I fail to see how it takes away from the article or anyones ability to see the picture if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.158.82 (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You fail to understand the point of the "not censored" policy. It means that the taste of an image is not a suitable factor in choosing whether to use it, period. If a properly-licensed image illustrating a pivotal event (such as this one) exists, then it is our duty as an informational resource to illuminate the subject by using the image. In this case especially, an image is, as they say, worth a thousand words. VanTucky ^Talk 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what he said. Also, please see WP:SNOW... this has been discussed before, and has always stayed - we're not gonna' remove it because it might "offend" a few people. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're failing to understand my point that by providing a link to the picture, you're not censoring it. From the policy "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" Your band standing about wikipedia not being censored, but by providing an uncensored link you'd be following the same uncensored guidelines, AND still maintaining the access to the information "some people" may want regarding the protest. You wouldn't be removing it, you'd be placing it on a separate page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.158.82 (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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

{{Hidden|titlestyle = text-align: left;|Click [show] to view an nude image of the band members protesting against the PMRC.|[[File:Bad Title Example.png|thumb|250px|right|RATM protesting against [[Parents Music Resource Center]] at [[Lollapalooza]] 1993.]]}}

produces:

Click [show] to view an nude image of the band members protesting against the PMRC.

RATM protesting against Parents Music Resource Center at Lollapalooza 1993.

This way, only those who want to see it can access it easily, and those who don't want to see it, well, won't. Seems like a solution to me, what do you think? ⁮şœśэїŝәқι^{ￆṱᾅἻқￂ} 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

People, it's frankly absurd to take so much offense at genitalia. They're a part of the human anatomy, whether or not you've been shamed into being scared of them by your Puritan society. The picture demonstrates perfectly the band's controversially outspoken activist nature. And besides, Wikipedia isn't censored, mmmkay? -76.241.73.95 15:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[Responding to RFC] Guys the reality of this is that it is an image of a protest it is designed to shock and offend. As such it illustrates the article in a way which is beneficial to the article - a key requirement of any such image. As well, as has been repeatedly stated in the discussion Wikipedia is not (and in this authors opinion, should not be censored. A solution such as suggested by ⁮şœśэїŝәқι may be an appropriate work around? PhatePunk 03:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense. Wikipedia is not censored, and to suppress an image (making it hidden to satisfy prudes is suppression) directly and obviously violates this principle. Hiding an image as been suggested is not a solution, it's an attempt to censor something softly. This is a slippery slope, and if the images on articles such as Anal sex, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Syphilis are protected by the WP:NOT#CENSORED policy, then obviously this is too. A simple image of four naked men is not some perverse sex act, and any proposal to remove this image from the page - completely or in part - is unacceptable. The simple fact is, Wikipedia includes images that some might find offensive. Period, end of story. There are plenty of disclaimers and ample explanation for it, so being surprised to find nude images is your ignorance, not our negligence. Consensus may change, but you're not going to overturn a hallowed policy of this encyclopedic in one fell swoop on a band article talk page. The bottom line is: firm policy supports keeping the image, and keeping it has been affirmed by an overwhelming majority of registered users. Grow up for pete's sake, it's just a damn penis. VanTucky ^Talk 04:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The image is informative and illustrates the subject (apparently the nude protest was notable), so it stays. We're not going to censor it because you are offended by it, sorry. We're an encyclopaedia. Melsaran (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the image adds value to the article because it shows the extent of the protest. Just by reading the text I got the impression they were wearing guitars etc and did not take such bold steps. xlynx 10:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen, just break it down to the very basics. 1.) Rage Against the Machine (as the name more than tacitly implies) is a band very much in support of free expression in the form of opem protest, orthodox or otherwise. 2.) Wikipedia is a virtual encyclopedia and is not subject to censorship - WP:NOT#CENSORED, 3.)The picture is profoundly informative, illustrating (no pun intended) the very nature of the band's principles, and 4.)There is precedent for making such a photograph visible per the hundreds of articles detailing reproductive anatomy, and not just with cartoon schematics. Granted that is for "educational" purposes, but then again, information is education. This is obviously informative Wisdom89 08:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh....im not offended in anyway by this picture. Im offended that it pops out of nowhere like that. This is very simple, we create a page for the protest, you know a small page, and move the picture over there. Its not censoring now is it? Its still there, its just not there kay? And I wouldnt vist the page mkay? And hopefully neather does a eight year old kid who happens to like the band and stumple upon it, have a angry parent, who didnt read the non-censoring rule, and tries to sue wikipedia, not like she would win... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.119.35 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Only comment I have is this - at the start of a lot of Wikipedia articles there are disclaimers about spoilers, current events, disputed information etc. Why not a disclaimer that the page contains an image which has nudity. I'm not commenting about the picture itself, just that I would like to see a warning (similar to the 'not safe for work' references you see on a lot of internet sites. Thanks. 203.31.52.131 03:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the picture. I don't really see any arguments for why the picture isn't relevant for the article. If the picture is relevant to the article, it shouldn't be hidden behind a box, nor should it be tucked away in a new article. — Ksero 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The picture is relevant to the article and there is no significant reason to remove it. This has already been hashed out before and the current use of this picture is in line with Wikipedia policies and conventions. Kaldari 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The picture illustrates well the nature of the band and doesn't clash with any Wikipedia policies. It's not even that offensive to any but the most ridiculous prudes, IMHO. - 76.241.73.95 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, this vote is pointless, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, I will vote incase it must come to that, and so I vote to keep the picture. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Voting, however, can be used to establish if consensus has been reached. It's not necessarily keep vs delete per se. Wisdom89 01:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, per my above comments, I'm firm that the picture must be kept. VanTucky ^Talk 03:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I can't rationalize deleting this image just because a few people are offended by it. I believe it shows that the band protested against a wide range of issues and what they did to do it. DTGardner 12:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the picture is relevent to the topic but when I wasn't expecting to see it. I think there should at least be something at the top of the article that states the picture is there, its not censoring just giving a warning but it should stay. Keep. JordanReddington 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Remove. Seriously, what is the point? We don't need a representation of what happened, or even just put it in a closed box. I'm a RATM fan and a teen, and to the person that took that photo, sick mind. andrewrox424 ^Bleep 09:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Weak Remove - I have to say, I've commented on this before, and I still don't have a dog in this race, but there's not much objective reason to have the picture around other than to make a point. In my evaluation, you don't lose much descriptive effect (indeed - without reading the corresponding section, you don't gain any in-depth understanding of the event, and out of context all it serves as is a commentary on the band members genitalia). I can understand some of the reasons I've seen for wanting to keep it, but with all, but with all respect, a lot of the (and I'm sure you guys know who you are) seem to be directed more toward with poking a finger in the eye of a social norm than in making the article better. One thing I will add, though - frequent recurrence of the debate is not indication of a WP:SNOW situation, but rather an indication of a smaller group of editors dedicated to the article staking out a consensus and that smaller consensus being consistently questioned by viewers and commentators just passing through. I'm not saying that either position is necessarily wrong, but in my estimation, weighing the potential difficulty the picture poses to the average user's use of the article in several environments, I'd be happy to see it go. This isn't an article like penis where you can expect to find nudity - it's an article about a rock band that released 4 records in the 90s.Cool moe dee 345 18:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - ...a rock band that put an image of a burning monk on their cover (which I personally find a lot more disturbing then seeing four naked men...) Protest is an important part of the band's biography. An image depicting one of the protests doesn't seem entirely out of place. As of yet, I haven't heard one reason to remove it that goes beyond "it is sick" or "it could be shocking" etc. which is why I would keep the image for the time being. Johnnyw talk 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

JohnnyW, I couldn't have said it myself. The fact that nobody's tried to take down the photo of the burning monk from the Rage Against the Machine (album) article, yet have a separate page just to handle complaints about an image of four people without clothes is a better description of the idiocy of censorship of nudity if I've ever heard it. Floaterfluss ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I wanted to add some more junk here, first off i wonder who took that picture, and why they would,keep it in a photo album, enjoy themselves to it,who knows? 2nd, there is still no need for the picture, reading the text is a good enough idea of the event, we dont need to surpise someone with that picture, I found the event amuseing to read about, but to see it? No needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.119.35 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that this discussion seems to be going in circles, and has been here for far too long after a clear majority consensus was reached. I don't see a single argument by recent commentators that contradicts WP:NOT#CENSORED. All seem to be forgetting the letter and spirit of that policy: taste is not an issue when choosing images, as Wikipedia inevitably includes content that may be offensive and inappropriate for minors. Practically a whole month of RFC is unusual for an incident, and the majority consensus of registered users here clearly sways in favor of keeping the image. VanTucky ^Talk 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)