Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Backmasking

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:00, 16 July 2007.

Backmasking

[edit]

Self-nomination. Comprehensive, sourced, and I hope well-written. 33KB without refs and links. Λυδαcιτγ 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quick point...your skepticism section could use some work in the "Jeff Milner" part. JHMM13 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was fixed, by the way. Λυδαcιτγ 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I found only a few minor problems with the text, and overall it seems FA-worthy and an interesting read. (The vagarities of human nature never ceases to astonish me.) The citations need to have a litle more consistency, especially regarding the date format (or the lack of a date in many instances.) — RJH (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most/all of the websites cited have an accessdate... are you referring to the print citations? Λυδαcιτγ 02:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant the "date=" fields. Note #2, for example, gives a last year modified as 2006, for example. Note #7 gives a copyright year of 2001; note #18 has a publication date of March 27, 1983, &c. Also note that #3 is a broken link. — RJH (talk)
  • Comment, I went through and filled in many missing publishers, and see quite a few personal websites, blogs, and other possibly non-reliable sources among the sources used. Also, many news items are linked to personal websites; did the editor actually view the actual news sources? If not, the websites used are the source, and they aren't typically reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to consider reliability in terms of the information given. For example, I apply a lighter standard for reliability to the documentation of the message in Weird Al's song "I Remember Larry" than to the sources for the information about fundamentalist Christian groups in the 1970s. In the former case the message is easily found with Audacity, but the website shows that this information is not original research. In the latter case, on the other hand, the information is both possibly controversial and not personally verifiable, so a stronger source is needed.
  • In regards to the news items, are you referring to usage such as this, where an interview used in a magazine is posted on the interviewer's website? Λυδαcιτγ 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are examples of some of my concerns:
  • "In 1877, the phonograph was invented by Thomas Edison, allowing sound to be recorded and reproduced on the gramophone record.[2]" This is referenced to loopers-delight.com. I'm not sure we need to reference that Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, and that it was the first medium that allowed sound to be recorded and reproduced, but if we do need to cite that (I'm not sure if we should consider it common knowledge), we should use the highest quality source for that sort of statement, of which there should be many. Why is Kim a reliable source for this kind of info?
  • I can't find anything to indicate that http://www.tinfoil.com/default.htm is a reliable source (and last access date is missing).
  • What makes TOTSE a reliable source?
  • CitizenArcane — which appaers to be a blog http://www.citizenarcane.com/ — is used to source a statement about a Resolutionn passing in the House; why is a blog a reliable source for that kind of info, which should be available many other places?
  • IMDb is used as a source
  • What makes http://www.backmaskonline.com/about.html a reliable source?
  • I can't determine what makes Jay's Movie and Music Blog reliable; I can't find a link about him, and it looks like there may be some copyvios on that site.
  • Does http://www.matthew-sweet.com have copyright for all the articles it reproduces?
  • Does Racer Records have permission to reproduce this news article?
  • Does lashtal.com have copyright for an article I couldn't view since the unidentified PDF hung my computer (please identify PDFs in sources)
  • What makes http://www.jeffmilner.com reliable?
There are more; those are samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all the links to potential copyright violations, and addressed your reliability concerns, with the exception of sites such as Backmask Online and Milner's site. Again, I argue that as the purpose of these references is to document that the information they follow has been published - i.e., is not original research - a lighter standard should be applied in regards to their reliability. As WP:V says, "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made", and the claims made by most of the references from number 38 to number 68 are not exceptional. Λυδαcιτγ 23:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, once SandyGeorgia's concerns are addressed. A well-referenced comprehensive article. I spot a few issues with footnote placement, in particular, some are placed before full-stops rather than after. CloudNine 08:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I didn't miss any, these are the two sentences with such placement:

Artists who have been accused of backmasking include Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Electric Light Orchestra, Queen, Styx, AC/DC, Judas Priest, The Eagles,[74] The Rolling Stones,[74] Jefferson Starship,[30] Black Oak Arkansas,[30] Rush,[75] Britney Spears,[76] and Eminem[23].

Cradle of Filth, another band which has employed Satanic imagery, released a song entitled "Dinner at Deviant's Palace", consisting almost entirely of ambient sounds and a reversed reading of the Lord's Prayer[46] (a backwards reading of the Lord's Prayer is reportedly a major part of the Black Mass[20][47]).

  • In the first case, I put the footnote in front of the period to clarify that it refers only to the accusation of Eminem, not to the entire sentence. In the second, I placed the footnote in front of the parenthetical clause (?) to show that it only applies to the part of the sentence before that clause. Λυδαcιτγ 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I was curious as to why it was. I'm sure you can place the Eminem footnote after the full stop though. CloudNine 08:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did so. Λυδαcιτγ 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Well-written. Tony 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead image is unsuitable for the article. It isn't a picture directly related or representative to the subject. I suggest you remove it or put it down in the section that deals whith digital recordings and audio software. CG 15:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it is directly related - the message is a reference to Satanic backmasking in music - but not representative of the subject as a whole. The problem is that there isn't exactly a representative image. Though the SoX screenshot isn't perfect, I think it's better than no image at all in the top right corner. Λυδαcιτγ 02:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is very bad. It represents the concept of "satanic backmasking" but it doesn't illustrate it at all. What I see is just a screen with some text that I can't read. Plus it's not a screenshot of a software ancred in popular culture. I prefer if you remove it and leave the nav box. It's common practice to put a nav box instead of a lead image when no suitable picture is found, especially on abstract subjects. (The same thing happened for the Evolution article). CG 14:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: on fair use grounds. The image Image:Revolver.jpg is used on the article, and the article mentions this album as being the first to use backmasking. But, the album cover's depiction is irrelevant to this commentary. The image is clearly replaceable by text (and has been inline in the article). An appropriate fair use would be an audio clip with the backmasking in the clip. The album cover does not depict the backmasking and therefore does not contribute in anyway to the article. Image:PMRC.jpg is lacking a fair use rationale for use in this article. It has a fair use rationale, but it is generic and not distinct to this article. This fails WP:NFCC #10(c). Further, this image is not necessary to the article. It's purely a depiction of the founders of that group. This is necessary to the article on the group, but not to this article; it's use here is just decorative. Image:Judas Priest - Stained Class.jpg suffers from the same problem as the Revolver cover. An audio clip of the contested backmasking would be highly relevant. The album cover is irrelevant to the discussion and adds nothing. It's use here is decorative. --Durin 14:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Durin, I think you are right to a certain degree that the images are decorative, but they are also useful as visual identification of the subjects they portray. While no fair use image is absolutely necessary, a picture can be worth a thousand words. I removed the images of Stained Class and the PMRC, but I think Revolver, as the first album with backmasking, is pretty important to the subject, and that the use of Image:Revolver.jpg to highlight the album is fair considering the importance of this album. I updated the rationale accordingly. Do you find this adequate justification? Λυδαcιτγ 02:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your work. No, I don't consider the album cover's use under our fair use policy to be correct. Identification purposes as a defense for fair use have been routinely failing over the last several months. I still believe an audio clip with the purported backmasking would be far more relevant and certainly within our fair use policies. The album cover isn't. --Durin 16:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't a matter of copyright paranoia. It's a matter of our overall focus and mission, which is very far removed and above fair use law. --Durin 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that we are stricter than we legally have to be. In this case I think we are too strict. Perhaps copyright paranoia is the wrong term; "excessive dislike of copyrighted material" might be more a accurate reflection of how I see it. Λυδαcιτγ 04:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • care of the funny farm, Chalfont - can you explain what a funny farm is, and/or why Chalfont is one?
  • Shut your f[censored]ing mouth - how exactly did they manage to record the word f[censored]? A bleep? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — This article should be retitled as "Backward Recording" or perhaps split into 2 different articles. There are two completely different topics under discussion here. My perspective as a recording engineer is that backward recording of instruments is a legitimate form of artistic musical expression. "Backmasking" is a highly controversial subject. Only a few of these spoken or sung messages were recorded backward on purpose. Most of what is called "Backmasking" happened completely by accident and is completely open to the interpretation and the imagination of the listener. Personally I don't think there is really any such thing as "Backmasking" at all. It was a hoax created by a very small number of wacko television evangelists. Most Christians know better. As a Lutheran, I am disgusted by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoni4316 (talk • contribs)
  • Backmasking is effectively backwards recording, although the term backmasking is used mostly in reference to spoken messages as opposed to sound effects. Take a look at any of the references and you will see that it is used to refer to real and non-controversial backwards recording. As for the controversial messages, take a look at the accusations section for a discussion of the controversy, which presents both sides of the issue in accordance with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Λυδαcιτγ 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. I just had two concerns while reading the article. The first and primary one is that reactions to Backmasking from outside the US are only mentioned once (an Australian is mentioned once as far as I can remember). Was this topic ever an issue outside of the US? The artists the article deals with were certainly well-known all over the world. The second issue was the references to other sections within the article. One of them even linked a non-existing section. All in all, I find them rather annoying and distracting. I think readers can generally figure when two topics dealt with in the same article relate. Other that, congratulations on a great article. I would love to support if you can deal with these two issues.--Carabinieri 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The backmasking controversy was really an American phenomenon. As Robert Plant said, "I found it foul, the whole idea... but it's very American. Nowhere else in the world has anybody ever considered it, or been concerned or bothered at all about that." Another Plant quote (same source): "How could anyone sing backwards? It's complete bunkum--it can't be done. Only Americans would come up with something that ridiculous." Apparently the Canadian legislature considered some kind of legislation similar to the California bill, but it was probably never passed. And I'm sure there are some Christian groups like the Australian Bible Believers in Europe or South America that have made reference to Satanic backmasking. Other than that, I don't think the rest of the world has bothered with this issue.
  • Your suggestion about the section links is a good one, and I've taken them out. Λυδαcιτγ 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think there's any way of mentioning the fact that this was not an issue outside the US explicitly without it sounding odd? As it is, I think it seems like the article has a US/UK/AU-focus that is typical for English Wikipedia. Such a focus is alright if the topic is just an American/British/Australian issue, as seems to be the case here, but it would be nice to be able to distinguish it from systematically biased articles that just treat issues from this English-speaking point of view as a matter of principle.--Carabinieri 04:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is that a statement like "Backmasking was only a major issue in the English-speaking world" requires a citation. One option would be to use Plant's quote: Robert Plant argued that backmasking was "very American", pointing out that "Nowhere else in the world has anybody ever considered it, or been concerned or bothered at all about that." It could go after the sentence Government action was also called for in the legislatures of Texas and Canada.. Λυδαcιτγ 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Backmasking&oldid=1145616583"