Talk:Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)

Untitled

It is a song from the ICP, a clearly notable band how. --SKATER ^Speak. 22:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception/Criticism

Ok, there are way too many sources and big sites (Cracked is one of them) criticizing this song's lyrics not to mention it here on this page. It has become sort of an internet phenomenon as well.

Agreed. This page doesn't seem to be very neutral. 69.80.182.106 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (I'd rather remain anonymous)

• Since webcomics, comedy websites, and blogs are not notable sources of music criticism, I removed a lot of the "reception" section, revealing that this song hasn't received enough coverage for an article. AfD. (Sugar Bear

Ok, there are way too many sources and big sites (Cracked is one of them) criticizing this song's lyrics not to mention it here on this page. It has become sort of an internet phenomenon as well.

Agreed. This page doesn't seem to be very neutral. 69.80.182.106 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) (I'd rather remain anonymous)

• Since webcomics, comedy websites, and blogs are not notable sources of music criticism, I removed a lot of the "reception" section, revealing that this song hasn't received enough coverage for an article. AfD. (Sugar Bear

I feel the bob dylan part should be taken out it's just hear say and a opinion of the band and not a reveiw of the song

I'm taking the bob dylan part out.

fuckin' magnets and anti science

This song is the source of the "fuckin' magnets" internet meme, an example of magnetism in popular culture, and has been blasted by some for being anti-science.If your pissed at the scientist, isn't that anti-intellectual?Smiloid (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any criticism for being anti-science, for one. For another, that line you mention is a joke. And there is no evidence of this being an Internet meme. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

That's ridiculous. Just because these sources are not notable (comedy websites are not, you're right), it is still something found in "popular culture" and is therefore encyclopedic. Besides, what about this NYtimes article]? Or this? and this? You haven't even searched it. This article shows bias. It even isn't included in the base article for "Insane Clown Posse". Is the NYtimes peer-reviewed and acceptable enough, or will I need to add this to the article myself? The^FSAviator • T 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/f-cking-magnets-how-do-they-work#comment_37524

/evidence of this being an Internet meme. EpsilonJSTC (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Message boards are not reliable sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC))

• So what you're saying is that the one place that internet memes actually exist is not acceptable as a reliable source on whether or not internet memes exist? Wouldn't that make Net Memes entirely non-sourceable across the board? (Spankotron (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

• This is an article about a song. Internet reception is trivial. Articles on memes require reliable sources. Memes have to be covered by recognized media in order to be considered notable. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

Internet meme?

This could be borderline as far as being a meme. There's a website dedicated to it (NSFW), which contains a lot of the standard meme trappings, with lots of images (NSFW again) which are sometimes mashed up with other memes. I'm not sure how that would be used as evidence, however, since we have particular requirements on WP, and some random site hardly passes WP:RS. Encyclopedia Dramatica also calls it a meme; although I can't link there directly, it's at the site name plus /Fuckin_Magnets. Since the site is blocked, I'm certain that it doesn't count as a WP:RS! The magnets line is also being evaluated at Know Your Meme. It's also in the something awful forum. This MTV article says the video is becoming "more viral and talked-about by the day". Also, that link I provided to Billboard.com in the AfD discussion had a feature about it in the "viral videos" category. I'd say there's at least a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that the video is close to meme status. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's no reliable sources stating that this is an Internet meme. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Found one. Please stop reverting that change and the one quoting the infamous (to quote the source I added) "fuckin magnets" line. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that, for one, the source you added doesn't refer to it as an Internet meme. For another, we can't make controversial statements based solely on one source. And, furthermore, you can't add POV phrasing based on an incorrect interpretation of the song lyrics and refer to song lyrics as "infamous". John Gotti was "infamous". This is a minor song on a recent album. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

The "infamous" line came from the song's creator - I think we can safely conclude that the "fuckin' magnets" line is significant and worth mentioning. What with most of the sources mentioning it and all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I already listed that source, and it doesn't say anything about a meme. You could conceivably make a case that two reliable sources (MTV & Billboard) have called the video "viral", but it's still pretty trivial at this point. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm, the source says, in the lead paragraph, that the video "has blossomed into a cultural moment all its own and sparked a handful of online memes." So yes, I am going to say that it does in fact say quite a bit about Internet memes, thank you. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was extremely sloppy on my part. I thought I'd quoted the only pertinent part, and hadn't gone back to look at it. I'd say you could add something about exactly what is said, that it sparked some online memes. That's slightly different than being its own meme, but I'd say it's noteworthy. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Internet memes are not worth mentioning in an article about a song. If you started an article called "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" It would be deleted for being so incredibly trivial. Something appearing on the Internet lasts very briefly. Not too many Internet memes have the standing power or mainstream coverage to have their own article, and in cases like this, it's not worth mentioning that some guy on the Internet thinks this is funny. The Bruce quote afterward doesn't add anything to the article. I don't think we should pad out the article needlessly. There's nothing particularly encyclopedic about putting so much focus on a minor line in the song. It doesn't help the reader's understanding about what the song is actually about. What does help people understand what the song is about is the more relevant quotes that actually say straight up what the song means. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_gonna_give_you_up

/argument that internet memes are worth mentioning in an article about a song EpsilonJSTC (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• • With all due respect, you seem considerably more invested in a view of the purity of the song than the song as an actual social phenomenon in a way that is unsound. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I have no idea what you're talking about. It's just a song. The issue here is how relevant this content is. I've pointed out that the things you've added aren't particularly relevant. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

(edit conflict)

One point. Things that aren't notable on their own aren't necessarily not worth adding to other articles. A perfect example of this would be a lot of band pages. Just because they don't have articles for every single album they release doesn't mean those articles shouldn't be listed on the band's main page. I think there's possibly something similar going on with the internet meme issue here. Of course, it could be a matter of WP:RECENTISM. I haven't done a lot of looking around to see how many other internet memes get their own pages, or get mentioned on other pages, but I know there's a page for All your base are belong to us, for example. Certainly notable. Maybe this should just be put on hold to see if it actually grows into something significant or is just a brief bubble on the internet ocean. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Frankly it doesn't matter how many memes have their own pages... it's all about how big the topic is. If it's one or two reliable sources and not much information, then a paragraph in the song's article is fine. If the topic becomes large enough for it's own article, then so be it.... however, I'd love to see an article titled "Fucking Magnets, How do they work?" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an Internet meme. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Sugar Bear, you are everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • What do you call catchphrases that get used repeatedly on image/messageboards? If it's not a meme than neither is "the cake is a lie" or "all your base is belong to us".86.46.247.80 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to fit the definition given in our own article. It may not be notable (only time will tell on that) and there may not be any sources but it fits well among the ranks of dozens of other minor memes. See this Google trends report for an interesting comparison of this meme to more popular one. -----J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the aforementioned KnowYourMeme ended up showing how the song and rap group ended up being an Internet meme, so if that doesn't work, than I don't know what to tell you. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, who died and made Sugar Bear lord and master of internet memes? A meme is a meme when it is a meme. You cannot simply write it off by saying it is not one.

He's being deliberately difficult to deal with. It's pretty obvious from a lot of his edits. I think he's blocked now, from edit warring. 86.46.197.102 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sugar Bear is currently banned from editing. Adding the meme ... about 6 years too late.Mdnahas (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Definition of miracle

1: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs 2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment 3: Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law 71.212.215.24 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortlisting

I added the section after reading the Inside Scooop's report on the incident and it got marked as vandalism. Can anyone tell me why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.187.227 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference doesn't say anything about the shortlisting information added to the article. That link goes to a site under construction, and does not appear to be a reliable source. Hence, the edit was reasonably assumed to be vandalism or a prank. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 17:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this

And how exactly is this quote, "taken out of context"? The song is clearly anti-science, and this quote isn't biased. It's including a part of the story in the article. In parts this article acts as if it's just another song, and I've tried to satisfy other OCP fan-editor's needs by not even mentioning the meme, and now you're saying a direct quote from bruce is biased? Please explain your reasoning. The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 21:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• It's not anti-science. The song is about how things in life are not appreciated. The quote is not biased, the way it is set up is, by trying to use it to make claims that Bruce does not. The songwriters don't say that the song is anti-science, they've said that it isn't. The song promotes taking wonder in the world, not opposition to science. See WP:NPOV. Write about the song, state the facts, don't make personalized interpretations. WTF (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to look at the quotes and possibly say Bruce is anti-science, or anti-scientist, but I suppose he never specifically says the song is anti-science. If there was a reliable source commentator who said that, we could use that, but I suppose framing the quote is a bit of WP:SYNTH or similar. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 23:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Are there any suggestions on how to better frame the quote then? The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the change you made is fine. His quote is still important and useful, and works in the Reception section, since it is a response to the song's reception. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This song is against politicized science. Not real science. 184.96.254.193 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion here seems to be based partly on people's personal interpretation of the song. I think we need to look at more sourced info if such exists. Trevor GH5 (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the song itself: "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist. Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed". Now who was saying the song isn't anti-science?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking listeners to appreciate life is not anti science.WTF (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Telling the listener that scientists are all liars isn't anti-science? That sentence (which, I remind you, is in the very song itself), especially given it's context, also seems to imply that we actually don't have any kind of explanation for said "miracles"--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not what the song says, and it's not what the context is about. The song is about their kids experiencing the wonders of the world for the first time and a jaded Internet generation that doesn't appreciate the greatness of things in life. WTF (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is debating whether or not the Insane Clown Posse are feeling, and encouraging people to feel, awe at the wonders of the world, even those that are small everyday occurrences (nor do scientists, in any way, fail to view them with the same awe and then some, contrary to popular perception), but I fail to understand how one could claim that this song isn't anti-science. If you can, please enlighten me. To quote directly from the song (about two minutes in): "And I don't wanna talk to a scientist. Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed". Now can you please explain how that isn't anti-science? Can you please explain how that isn't saying that scientists are just lying? Can you please explain what the "context" you speak of is?

If you can explain those things, I would be grateful. It would mean that I have been very wrong, and then it would be good to have that problem fixed. If you can't... well, I won't be surprised.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything put in here needs to be sourced. Several articles have claimed the song to be anti-science. However, Insane Clown Posse has stated that it is not. Both must be mentioned in the article, but it is not tagged as anti-science because the creators themselves have said it isn't. I'll read through the article later to see what I can add. Everybody must try to keep a level head here because both sides have valid points, it has been reported as anti-science but officially it is not. We must remember to respect both the reviewers’ opinions as well as the opinions of the creators.Juggalobrink (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

According to the creators, scientists are lying. Want a source? Check the song itself! There are other sources where they claim the song isn't anti-science, but this contradicts the songs lyrics. Of course the claim that science takes away the joy out of things, does make them anti-science in a way, but they also state, quite clearly, in the song, that science is all lies. The article should, of course, include their claims that the song isn't anti-science, but to state that it isn't anti-science, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is highly POV--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Some of their other songs say that they kill people, does that mean that they actually kill people? No. Do they actually believe that all of these things are the correct definition of miracles? No, and they stated that in sources. There is no POV issue on my part, and suggesting so is complete nonsense. Unless you can provide a source where they say the song is anti-science, then it cannot be tagged as such. Please read WP:V for more information. The anti-science claim can be challenged and is infact refuted by sources. Reviewers state their opinions, but opinions do not make facts. The only people who can state whether the song is truly anti-science is the group themself, and they have not once stated that it is the case.Juggalobrink (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not the Insane Clown Posse claim (in interviews, after seeing the public outrage towards the perceived anti-science attitude) that it wasn't anti-science is not, by any means, any more valid than reviewers opinions. In many ways, it can be considered less reliable, seeing as they had ample motive to lie. As to the analogy about killing... That analogy doesn't work. The whole killing people aspect is pretty much an exaggeration of dislike, for entertainment value. That is easily understood. In this song, they label a bunch of quite well explained (by science), normal and everyday occurrences as miracles. While one could defend this by saying that they don't mean actual miracles, but rather things that are wondrous and awesome (and they are), this falls apart when you look at the place in the lyrics, where they state that the scientific answers are lies. This means that the "miracles" are unexplained, according to the song, and that everything that science tells us, are lies. Thus meaning that the word miracle, is being used in the more supernatural sense of the word. Please explain how this could be viewed as not being anti-science. Answer the question and provide the explanations, that I asked of WTF. Explain how your analogy works. Explain how I am wrong, in my arguments.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the link that I provided you. Anything written on Wikipedia that may be challenged needs to be cited. I'll repeat what I've already said, provide a source where they say that the song is anti-science. Until then, the claim is disputed and refuted. I'm not going to respond to the constant bickering, but I'm watching the article so if you need anything else I'll see it.Juggalobrink (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The song is currently presented as not being anti-science. There is no basis for that claim. There is nothing that refutes the idea that it is anti-science. As to sources... I have provided a great source: The song itself! Here's a list of sources:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs&t=1m54s
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/aug/18/insane-clown-posse
• http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/10/12/insane-clown-posse-comes-out-as-evangelical-christian/
• http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/onthedownload/archive/2010/04/08/in-case-you-didn-t-already-think-that-icp-is-the-worst-group-of-all-time.aspx
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11-30/news/ct-talk-keilman-miracles-1130-20101130_1_pomegranate-juice-science-rappers
• http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fcking-magnets-how-do-they-work#.TkwaTizxH0N

--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added the articles that mentioned anti-science. One of them was the one I already cited though. Thank you.Juggalobrink (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

... What about my questions and requests for clarification? I have yet to hear anything that would answer any of them.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already answered your question twice. We have to write what the sources say. All of the sources that you've provided are reviewers stating that they believe the song is anti-science, so that is their belief. Then we have the source where Bruce responds. Finally we have the source where a reviewer believes the song is against disenchantment, so that is his belief. Unless there is a source where the group says that the song is anti-science or against disenchantment, then we cannot present others' opinion as fact. I'm sorry but I can't explain it any better than that. We present material as it is cited. If it's an opinion then it's presented as an opinion, no matter what we personally believe to be true.Juggalobrink (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the article as well as organizing some of the information better. The new anti-science information can be found in the second paragraph in the Music and lyrics section. I could only find one reliable source that claimed the song was anti-science, so if anyone finds some more please add them or post them here and I'll add them.Juggalobrink (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100410123145/http://www.insaneclownposse.com/general-news/bang-pow-boom-nuclear-edition-out-now/ to http://www.insaneclownposse.com/general-news/bang-pow-boom-nuclear-edition-out-now/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915151610/http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2011/08/08/insane-clown-posse/ to http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2011/08/08/insane-clown-posse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426025115/http://psychopathicrecords.com/hatchetherald/100423/index.html to http://psychopathicrecords.com/hatchetherald/100423/index.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20100420090005/http://newsroom.mtv.com/2010/04/18/saturday-night-live-miracles-parody/ to http://newsroom.mtv.com/2010/04/18/saturday-night-live-miracles-parody/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)