Talk:Wake Up (Rage Against the Machine song)

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Song infobox

Song infobox added as requested. Feel free to add chart positions etc. if you can find a source. mode_seven 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RageAgainsttheMachineRageAgainsttheMachine.jpg

Image:RageAgainsttheMachineRageAgainsttheMachine.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible OR

I removed this bit from the article:

It should be noted that Truman, upon leaving the presidency, was not rich, contrary to de la Rocha's claim.  Truman in fact had no savings and lived off of a meager army pension.^[1]  Four years later, he was quoted saying to then-House Majority Leader John McCormack, "Had it not been for the fact that I was able to sell some property that my brother, sister, and I inherited from our mother, I would practically be on relief, but with the sale of that property I am not financially embarrassed."^[2]  It is likely that Truman's financial status played a role in Congress passing the Former Presidents Act the next year, offering a $25,000 yearly pension to each former president.^[3]

There is nothing in these sources to suggest any kind of response to de la Rocha's claim regarding Truman's pocketbook. To begin with, the first two sources come well before this controversial speech was even made, and the only source used here that came after the speech does not appear to have specifically come in its wake. All of this may well be true, but I do not feel it should be included unless directly brought up in reliable sources in response to de la Rocha's claim. To link these two topics together suggests an original, novel attempt to disprove something de la Rocha said. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this is an example of SYNTH; this is about a statement with a faulty premise that, left unaddressed, unintentionally promotes a historical myth on Wikipedia. Factual errors should be addressed even if they are in the context of a controversy regarding something different than the false premise (in this case whether it's acceptable to call for the execution of American presidents for war crimes). For example, the paragraph in Jenny McCarthy#Autism activism and views on vaccines that starts "McCarthy's claims" is full of references that do not refute her explicitly. I'd argue that this case is even more clear-cut, in the sense that it's a well-documented, quantifiable figure, rather than a scientific conclusion, which can always change with time. Truman's (lack of) wealth is also less well known; most people are aware that claims on vaccines and autism are at the very least controversial. (Of course, McCarthy's claims are potentially more harmful, so there's that.)

Anyway, Wikipedia:Inaccuracy suggests the use of footnotes to address such circumstances, which seems like a good way to address the factual error without giving it undue weight. Calbaer (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Vaccaro, Ernest B. (January 15, 1953). "Truman Puts in Busy Day as Term Comes to Close". The Victoria Advocate. Retrieved September 8, 2012.
^ McCullough, David (1992). Truman. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 963. ISBN 978-0-671-86920-5.
^ Smith, Stephanie (March 18, 2008). "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits" (PDF). U.S. Senate Congressional Research Service. Retrieved September 3, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

[1] Vaccaro, Ernest B. (January 15, 1953). "Truman Puts in Busy Day as Term Comes to Close". The Victoria Advocate. Retrieved September 8, 2012.

[2] McCullough, David (1992). Truman. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 963. ISBN 978-0-671-86920-5.

[3] Smith, Stephanie (March 18, 2008). "Former Presidents: Federal Pension and Retirement Benefits" (PDF). U.S. Senate Congressional Research Service. Retrieved September 3, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]