Talk:Christ Illusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Christ Illusion is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Featured topic star Christ Illusion is the main article in the "Christ Illusion" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
LuciferMorgan (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] New Album

Anyone heard this new album yet? Any comments? Monkeybreath 07:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can listen to Cult on the Slayer site. Cameronrobson 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Track Listing

I saw this page and noticed a difference between my copy and the track listing provided (I'm in the UK). After checking amazon.com and amazon.co.uk, there is too different track listings. Does anyone know why this change was made, or what other region's track listings are? Adamravenscroft 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why that is, but my copy has tracks 3-5 as Skeleton Christ, Eyes Of The Insane and Jihad, even though I bought it in the US (at Best Buy). I remember though when the album stream was put up on Myspace, Skeleton Christ was put up as track 5 instead of 3. Either way, I doubt that copies with Skeleton Christ as track 3 are only released in Europe, as I already stated. X-pert74 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's a matter of nationality. AMG lists "Skeleton Christ" as track 3, and I doubt they would be going by the European version unless specified. Also, my US copy has "Skeleton Christ" as track 3 and the other 2 re-ordered as well. Looking on Amazon.com, the main Christ Illusion CD has "Skeleton" at number 5, but there's also a version on Amazon that isn't listed as an import and generally looks the same (except with the re-ordered tracks and a lack of audio samples). I'm going to change the article to reflect that some versions differ and remove mention of Europe. Nufy8 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): [[Image:|15px]] c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: [[Image:|15px]]

Congratulations!--Rmky87 00:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work Lucifer! One more step towards FA! ;) Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban In India

This article described that the song "Jihad" outraged the Mumbai-based Catholic Secular Forum in India. I beg to disagree here. "Jihad", describes the September 11 from a terrorist perspective. Why would catholics in India be offended by that? To them the album cover and song names like "Skeleton Christ" were the main culprits! The article has been edited appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will231982 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baggin' On Christ Illusion

Why is this article filled with such negative quotes? I know they're quotes, but none of the other Slayer album pages are filled with so much of it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by URFG (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Well the only other Slayer album that's had work on it is Reign in Blood and that pretty much had 100% positive reviews. When Slayer release an album they expect a Reign in Blood and say they'll never make another one, and compare every album to it. M3tal H3ad 00:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's true. Also, every album after Seasons in the Abyss hasn't been met well. LuciferMorgan 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a positive New York Times review of the album I have access to that I'll add to the article to balance it out a little. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I just added it; I hope this alleviates the Wikipedian's expressed concerns. LuciferMorgan 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Slayer - Christ Illusion Special Edition.jpg

Image:Slayer - Christ Illusion Special Edition.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 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Secular Forum introduced to us twice, once is enough - zero times may be enough if they're not notable

"Joseph Dias of the Mumbai Christian group Catholic Secular Forum took "strong exception" to the original album artwork, and issued a memorandum to Mumbai's police commissioner in protest."

...

"A Christian group, the Mumbai based Catholic Secular Forum (CSF), condemned the album's lyrical content. The organisation's general secretary Joseph Dias issued a statement in which he deemed the lyrics to "Skeleton Christ" to be an "insult to Christianity".[50] The memorandum was sent to Mumbai's police commissioner, and further expressed concern that the track "Jihad" would offend "the sensibilities of the Muslims...and secular Indians who have respect for all faiths."[50] EMI India met with the CSF, apologising for Christ Illusion's release and recalling the album with no plans of a reissue.[50]"

That's twice you've told us they're a Christian group based in Mumbai. Also, since they have don't have a wiki article (presumably) I have to question if this group is notable? If they're not, perhaps we should just delete the section about their complaint against the artwork (or add that complaint as a minor aside in the lyrics section).

Of course, if their complaints about the lyrics lead to the album being banned in India that bit has to stay, although I'm not sure I'd namecheck them unless they're notable (and if they are notable, they should be wikilinked). --kingboyk (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Their complaint was indeed instrumental to the album being banned in India. All media references to the album's banning reference them, thus the reason they're mentioned. I'm unsure of their notability in general, other than their complaint led to the banning of the album in India. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How about losing the first mention then, or giving it an aside mention in the "lyrical themes" section? Being told twice that this minor (on a world scale) group is a Mumbai-based Christian group is a little grating :)
Alternatively, and this might be better, how about merging all of the controversy stuff into a Controversy section?

e.g.

[edit] Artwork

[edit] Lyrical themes

[edit] Controversy

This is a wonderful article, but I'm not entirely convinced by the structure towards the end and feel it could perhaps be improved on a little. Any thoughts?

--kingboyk (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I actually disagree with the above suggestion. At the moment, the article is much more focused than it would be with a "Controversy" section. The "Artwork" section discusses all aspects of the artwork, whereas the "Lyrical themes" section discusses all aspects of the artwork. I really fail to see the case for a "Controversy" section, and would strongly oppose it. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)