" 
 ==Disturbed== 

 am i the only person disturbed by the naked photo in the article. I mean its an article and not very appropriate for this site 
 :Wikipedia is not censored. Read the content disclaimer. ~    
 Quote: ""Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."" - I think a typical Wikipedia would find the image reasonably offensive and unnecessary, and a suitable alternative would of course be a simply cencored version of the same image, and the omission of penises in this article would not cause it to be any less informative, unless of course you visited the article on Rage Against the Machine with the sole purpose of finding the size of said penises.   

 :It's not as if the picure is showing a sexual act, all it is is four naked men on stage. Look about the site, and you'll find many other pictures. How people can be offended by the sight of the human body is beyond me. ≈   

 :: I can be offended with the human body. I wouldn't want to see my neighbors naked. That would offend anybody. Anyways, though I could care less if the image was on the article or not, it really doesn't inform us much. All I get out of it is ""RATM stood naked somewhere,"" not, ""Oh wow, look at these people and their political beliefs."" There really is no point to it in the article.   

 :: To cause offence is the whole point of the image and their act of protest.   

 :: Nude art is fine, this is not. Wonder why......its bands like this that point out such hypocrisy in this crazy ass world we live in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 So your saying the image is in the article with the sole purpose of it being to ""cause offence""? In that case it should certainly be removed - and I am going to do so.   
 :Allow me to make this very clear.  

 #The image is of a notable incident in the history of the subject of this article.  
 #No suitable alternative images to depicting this incident are available. 
 #A censored version of the image would not be a suitable alternative because it would not depict the incident accurately. 
 #As the incident was of an entirely visual nature, removing the image would cause the article to be less informative.  

 Ergo the image stays.  '  

 ::I agree with LeakyJee. I don't believe removal of the image would make the article less informative when a written description would explain the exact nature of the protest.   

 :::I think it is very informative; it summarizes the section into one image. Not to mention it invokes interest. I know when I first saw it, I said ""WTF?!"" out loud, and immediately started reading the section to find out why they did it.  '''  

 ==Reunion section== 
 Okay, I think this is getting a little out of hand. I don't think we can add anymore quotes to the Reunion section. I reverted this last addition primarily because we already have a quote of de la Rocha slamming ""those fascist motherfuckers at the Fox News Network"". But I