Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 21 June 2007

Backmasking

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

Comment: Quick point...your skepticism section could use some work in the "Jeff Milner" part. JHMM13 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This was fixed, by the way. Λυδαcιτγ 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Most/all of the websites cited have an accessdate... are you referring to the print citations? Λυδαcιτγ 02:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

• 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)

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." 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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, The Rolling Stones, Jefferson Starship, Black Oak Arkansas, Rush, Britney Spears, and Eminem.

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 (a backwards reading of the Lord's Prayer is reportedly a major part of the Black Mass).

• 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)

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)

OK, I did so. Λυδαcιτγ 21:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support—Well-written. Tony 09:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• I see your point. I moved the image into the Parody messages section, where it originally came from. Λυδαcιτγ 20:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose until SandyGeorgia's referencing and copyright concerns are addressed. Epbr123 00:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fixed. Epbr123 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)