Talk:Disturbed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Disturbed article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1 ~ * - Jan 13th 2007
/Archive 2 ~ Jan 14th 2007 - *
Last time archived: December 4th 2007


Contents

[edit] Protect on "Inside the Fire"

can we get the article for their new single protected or at least semi protected? people keep adding that criminal and divide will be on the single and so far the only place i've heard this rumor is wikipedia, and i'm getting tired of editing it out of the article (i know i'm not the only one).68.255.231.153 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The single's coming out tomorrow, so we'll see then if it's true or not. No need for protection at this point. Dan (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my mistake, the CD single is coming out in April... still, the editing seems to have calmed down on that page, and now we know Divide won't be on the single as it's on the album. Dan (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The B-Side "Criminal"

Could the user "66.56.165.231" stop removing Criminal from the b-side list? It is already confirmed to be a song, albeit an unreleased one, and it is mentioned in the main paragraph anyways. Thank you. Dan 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre

Nu metal? How can Disturbed be considered nu metal? Nu metal differentiates from other metal by incorporating rapping and an electronic/techno sound, like Linkin Park or Slipknot. Disturbed doesn't have either element... They are in absolutely no way nu metal... Just because some people think Disturbed is a bunch of posers or whatever, and that they think nu metal is a bunch of posers too, doesn't mean that they can classify Disturbed as nu metal. What's next? "Oh, well, I think the beatles are nu metal now cuz I don't like them." That's essentially the only argument to classify Disturbed as nu metal.Drew Nutter 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, I agree. Unfortunately the "genre police" here is very narrowminded and strict lol so you won't have much luck getting through. Dan 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Disturbed was nu metal more than everything else in the first, and partially in the later two albums. This has been discussed widely, check the archives. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people, including myself, still consider Disturbed nu metal. Other nu metal bands like System of a Down do not use turntables or rapping, but they still are nu metal. Rockdetector proves this pretty well. Plus, Disturbed has the same fanbase as most nu metal bands. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty weak arguement, alot of fans of Black Sabbath and Deep Purple share a fanbase with Kiss... I spose that Sabbath are Glam now? - Chairman Smith

How can they be considered Nu Metal or even Alternative Metal when they cite themselves as hard rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.224.84 (talk • contribs)

What they call themselves (which has been other things than hard rock too, by the way) is irrelevant. Edits reverted. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Music's just music. If it sounds good to you then it's good music from at least one person's point of view. There are too many sub-genres of music these days. Especially Rock and Metal. Let's just stick to liking what we like and ignoring what we don't, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.107.84 (talk • contribs)

Having a genre for a band is a great way to find similar bands that you may also like Deathwish238 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I too was confused to see them classified as nu metal. I've always called them hard rock more than anything else...this goes for all of their albums Deathwish238 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently people disagree with them beinc classified as "hard rock" or even "heavy metal". Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

they are nu metal...DarkMessiah AKA Necris 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

gee, is there an academy of the painfully obvious nearby? disturbed is 100% nu metal. incorporating techno affects with the guitar, adding in rapping from david draiman, 100% nu metal. don't even try to tell me that his rapping is "screaming". only occassionally, but usually, it's just plain rapping, sorry if you thought that you were a true metalhead for listening to disturbed. Itachi1452 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ^^ Finally some people I agree with! Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
While i agree with most of what you are saying (see archives) - calling Disturbed 100% nu metal proves you are not too knowledgeable about the subject. In any case however, i would wish that this topic would finally stay untouched for a couple of weeks so it can be buried in the archive. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hahahah yeah, so do I. I think the article's description of Disturbed's genre is pretty good as of now. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph should state them as a hard rock band. Alt. metal is clearly one of their genres and that's fine, but they're more hard rock than anything nowadays, as David Draiman himself says. Nu-metal is also one of their genres, I agree. James25402 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What Draiman says is irrelevant. And yes, Disturbed does SO sound like ACDC or the Stones.... ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with twsx. I could form a rap group and claim to play brutal death metal. We often see bands trying to label themselves with new genre names (HIM claim to be Love metal, Rhapsody of Fire claim to be Hollywood metal, and another band which I proposed to deletion on the French Wikipedia claimed to be "Alternative Power Black Death Gothic Doom Metal with punk influences"). Whatever they label themselves as, it doesn't change their genre. In fact, I think to make it more undisputable we should put "Disturbed is a rock band" since it's pretty much unquestionable that they are part of the rock genre (whether metal or not). It's just an idea, I don't necessarily plan on applying it unless other people agree. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well put, i'll make a paragraph to propose so, see below. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously their music can be classified in several categories, but there should at least be one reference per category. I think it is okay to classify the music any way that it can be sourced. Frog47 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we put Post-Grunge, I Mean they have some Post-Grunge in them. Mumble45 20:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That'd be good. The list would become quite big however, as we would have to add pretty much any music style. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

They are metal[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.125.221 (talk) 20:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed started off as heavy metal but they said themselfs that they are starting to go into alternative metal but they are still a heaps good band. Halo legend 00 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

other way around dude. they started out as a nu-metal band with some pretty heavy rapcore influences. eventually, as time passed, they started maturing, creating a more melodic alternative metal sound. of course, nu-metal still runs through 10,000 fists veins, with songs like decadence, sons of plunder, just stop, 10 thousand fists, and just about all except for "i'm alive", "overburdened", "striken", and "guarded". Itachi1452 (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

the only nu metal i can see is some electronic effects but that's not enough to make it nu metal. I think we should replace nu metal with thrash metal.They can be compared easily to thrash bands like slayer and metallica. --68.0.129.53 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

However, we have a good reference for nu metal, and without one being put forward for thrash metal, we cannot consider adding it. Metallica is also generally not considered trash at all, it must be noted, with a musical style distinctly different from Slayer (but that's off-topic). LinaMishima (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Metallica had a thrash period, but turned to different styles later in its carreer. Disturbed has nothing to do with thrash metal, I think it's pretty clear. We must remain vigilant to the sources that say incoherent stuff (are we really going to post reggae up there if a source says Disturbed is reggae?). Plus, I would think that the infobox and overall article is neutral and balanced. I find no need to change things around now. Zouavman Le Zouave 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, has the definition of genre's become so corrupted as to spawn this little monstrosity? I guess so. First off, nu-metal is not defined by "rapping and electronic sounds." That's only a little part to nu-metal, just as death metal could never be defined by just "blast beats and growling vocals." I know of metalcore acts that do the same thing. Hell, System of a Down pulls that off on occasion. Does that make them death metal? Hell no. Nu-metal is defined by certain lyrical themes, a certain guitar style and tuning (don't ask me, I'm not a guitar expert. Check out the Wiki article), and a number of other things. Otherwise bands like RATM(rapcore) could be called nu-metal, or bands like SOAD(alt metal) could be called thrash metal or nu-metal. I'll admit, The Sickness was a very nu-metal album. But even Believe had cast most of that aside. Ten Thousand Fists had kept small remnants of it on songs, like the opening of Ten Thousand Fists, or maybe Just Stop. But songs like I'm Alive or Stricken blow that out of the water. Take a listen to the new track, Perfect Insanity. I'm listening to it as I type. The guitar's have heavy NWOBHM and thrash metal influneces. Just listen to those solos if you want proof. The vocals do rap in the chorus, but rapping does not nu-metal make. A careful examination of other elements of the music place it solely into the alt metal grouping, with hard rock and and nu-metal influences. But the primary genre would be alt metal. Last I checked this page, alt metal was the general consensus. What changed? -RockMaster-talk|contribs 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] change headline to "is a rock band"

In desperation to give the genre pickering a rest; As brought up in the discussion right above this one, i propose to follow Zouave's idea and change the headline to "Disturbed is a rock band ....". Opinions please, will change in a couple of days if noone disagrees. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can go along with that, although you just KNOW some idiots will come along and be like "they're not rock! they're metal!", even though though in this case it is irrelevant as metal is a form of rock music. James25402 02:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to solve once and for all the debate for the headline. It is undisputable that Disturbed is part of the rock genre, and therefore putting a factually correct and undisputed genre in the headline can only give the reader a vague yet unbiased account. The rest of the article goes into more detail concerning the genre, which gives the reader more specific elements concerning the genre debate. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 06:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Apparently no one really opposes this proposition. Should we wait some more or should we apply it to the article? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Done.

Seems more like hard-rock, if not metal... How can they be considered just rock..?? I seriosuly have to revert his... Disturbed's genres don't even include this one..so how can the genre's list and the first statement contradict each other?? Cjgone2 03:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rock is a meta genre. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

rock is not metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.125.221 (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed is Metal, theyre way heavier than "rock" but they aint thrash. Rock refers to stuff like U2. Jay794 22:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You can see the "controversy" about that. Many people would disagree with calling them.. well, almost anything. While I would agree that the term "rock band" makes you think of U2 and bands alike, it still is the meta term also for heavy metal (and nu metal, be it a sub-genre of HMM or not), and i don't think anybody would argue that Disturbed falls under that area. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 23:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I just think rock is a little too soft for them. I mean its like saying Slayer are classic rock Jay794 09:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and change the headline to "a metal band" because rock is just too soft and not descriptive enough for them Jay794 (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Metal" has proven to be too controversial, and it isn't really much more descriptive. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 01:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed is not metal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redman2021 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when did rock and metal become synonomous? They are related, and have similar roots, but rock yesterday and today is far different from metal today and yesterday. I cringe when I hear people calling acts like AC/DC metal. Likewise, calling Disturbed rock is an equally cringe-worthy offense. Why do I say this. Look at...Foo Fighters. That's hard rock/post grunge. The parallels between them and a band like Disturbed are few, if any. Both rock and metal have evolved very differently over the years. Some overlap occurs occasionally, but this is hardly overlap. Just because Disturbed has softened and added more melody doesn't make them instantly rock. As erroneous as nu-metal is as a descriptor, it is far closer than "rock," a general term that even includes some pop punk bands, on occasion. Rock is the blanket term for a style of music. Metal is likewise a blanket term for another related but separate style of music. To use either alone would be monstrous. That's why we have sub-genres in the first place. -RockMaster-talk|contribs 00:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FIX THE SINGLES CHART NOW!

Seriously, it's a mess. 4.157.44.63 20:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent News section

Shouldn't this be inside the History section? I don't think it needs a section of its own. Plus, the word recent is extremely vague and can easily get outdated... Zouavman Le Zouave 16:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point... I'll get rid of it and incorporate it into the article. Dan 03:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different song articles

I've noticed that a lot of Disturbed songs had their own article. I've posted a message on the Ten Thousand Fists article and on a song article, but apparently no one is watching those pages. So I'll post my messages here:

  • From the Ten Thousand Fists talk page:
I noticed that all the songs from this album have a separate article. WP:MUSIC says:
"A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards:
  1. ...has been covered in sufficient independent works.
  2. ...has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups.
  3. ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart.
  4. ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire.
  5. ...has won a significant award or honor."
I don't see how any of these apply to most of these song articles. I would think it would be better to merge them into the album article.
  • From the Guarded talk page:
Is this website reliable? The title of it is "Disturbed es Dios" (Disturbed is God) which is clearly biased. If we go back to this page, we read that "The meanings are located in italics under each track title, and is a direct quote from David Draiman, himself." However, we can only take the author's word for it, and we have absolutely no proof.
The site is obviously a personal web page. WP:EL says in "Links to be avoided": Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
I don't think that this source is reliable.

I would think that, since those articles (excluding the singles) are not really important or reliable enough to have their own article, the contents should be merged into the album article and the articles themselves be deleted and recreated as redirects. I would also recommend that a more reliable or official source be found for the alleged Draiman quotes. Any thoughts on that? Zouavman Le Zouave 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the creator of a lot of those pages, I must say that I was unaware that the individual song pages needed to be notable... Since this is the case, then yes, it would be a good idea to merge them, though I'm not too sure on how to do that, so if anyone volunteers to do it that would be best.
As for the Disturbed Es Dios site, I don't think it's biased. The quotes are indeed reliable, as I have seen them taken from separate interviews; with enough effort it would be possible to find them, though pointless if the articles are going to be moved/merged/deleted anyways.
Good looking out, and sorry for making pointless pages! :D Dan 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha don't worry about it, I've made pointless pages myself. ^^ I'll take care of this tonight or tomorrow or this weekend. ;-) Zouavman Le Zouave 06:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha okay, thanks. Dan 15:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COMMENT>

GET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.193.83 (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Get... get... but "get" what? Zouavman Le Zouave 07:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
??? Dan 01:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Is there any reason why the picture of Disturbed's lineup as seen through a window has gone? And if it's for fair use reasons, how come no one has procured one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21655 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Crap...forgot to sign it. Sheesh. RageSamurai21655 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] long time no complain

hahh jk. not here too cause problems. actually i really like whuts happened too the page. its really come a long way. and i didnt barely help at all :)GuyDoe 00:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indestructible

So, after seeing the news about Disturbed's new album (unreferenced) on this page, I googled up "Disturbed Indestructible" and sure enough, there are reliable sites (like digg and blabbermouth) talking about it.
I am quite tired so I won't be able to put anything too good in the article, so here's a reference for you to incorporate into the article: http://www.smnnews.com/2007/10/26/disturbed-turn-bad-luck-into-inspiration-for-indestructible-lp/ If you google what I did, you'll probably find more. Thank you! Dan 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, added MTV reference. Thanks for the notice Dan! ~ | twsx | talkcont | 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and good job! Dan 15:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero 3

Why is Guitar Hero III keep on geting removie. It in the game after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have too many bloated lists in the article. The list should be limited to more known examples such as renowned movies, in other words, things that people who read the article are likely to know. While you could argue about the notability of some of the things that were listed (such as the Tony Hawk games, or the Need For Speed series) i would definitely say that Guitar Hero does not qualify. Personally, i would actually vote for having the list removed, as it doesn't really add anything useful to the article. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the list should be removed - it's not too extensive and it shows that the band is popular enough to have had their music used in notable projects (movies, games, etc.). This brings me to another point: Guitar Hero III. The Guitar Hero series is definitely popular, and I don't see why we should exclude it from the list... Dan 17:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Guitar Hero III sold US$100 million in its first week in North America alone.[1] That's about 1.6 million copies sold. Green Street, Earth vs. the Spider and Annapolis are certainly less notable. I agree that the list is not particularly useful, though. Mushroom (Talk) 17:45, 12 November 2007(UTC)

I think we should have a In popular culture part of the article because a lot of bands have them. So why not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk • contribs)

That is no valid reason. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you don't personally find it useful is no valid reason for its removal. I would argue that the the inclusion of "Trivia" or "In Popular Culture" sections is helpful; they are commonplace because they serve a purpose. Someone coming to Wikipedia to find information on a given subject is, well, looking for information on that subject. To exclude culturally-relevant information seems contrary to Wikipedian principles, at best. --Brainninja (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Land of Confusion

Being a no.1 hit, the cover should have more coverage in the article. 70.55.85.216 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed is Metal not Rock

Though Metal is a type of rock, it is almost becoming it's own Genre, so I vow to say that someone permanently change the genre to Metal, not Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillWorkForCereal (talk • contribs)

I recommend you read the sections on this talk page that take up with the issue (and direct any questions, or opinions to them). Also, remember to sign your posts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twsx (talk • contribs)
Ironic that you say that, since you yourself forgot to sign your own post. Anyways, yes, heavy metal is definitely its own genre, but that doesn't mean Disturbed fits into there. I think the current genre arrangement is fine. Make sure to read the other sections before starting a new one about the exact same subject. Dan 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that some people would not agree with you, WillWorkForCereal, on the fact that Disturbed is metal. Putting "Disturbed is a metal band" will therefore create a bias, which is contrary to the neutral point of view guidelines. Putting "Disturbed is a rock band" will make it so that no particular bias is made, since, as you said yourself, "metal is a type of rock". Therefore the possibility that Disturbed is a metal band is not excluded by the statement, but does not create any particular bias around the band's genre. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, that was embarrassing, sorry about that. *hides* Nice to hear something of you again by the way, Zouave. ;) ~ | twsx | talkcont | 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's just the problem. Metal is *NOT* a kind rock. Both share roots in bands from the 60's and 70's, but even in the 70's they parted ways. By the 80's, the two were evoloving and creating their own identities. For instance by the time AC/DC and Black Sabbath came into the spotlight, we could see a clear split in style between rock and metal, respectively. NWOBHM shattered the last vestiges of similarity, and thrash metal just blew it away. Death metal made rock pale in comparison, as far as sheer energy and impact are concerned. Black metal is something no rock band ever has nor ever will explore. Only in the past decade, with the mainstream assault and the birth and death of grunge have rock and metal even come close to crossing paths once again, through a little sick love child of a number of musical styles known as nu-metal. Ever since then, metal has proceeded to become more mellow, even as some bands still carry the banner of metal, such as Lamb of God or Arch Enemy, to name same well known bands. In short, While nu-metal carried some influences of rock and metal, among many other things, it takes an awful long stretch to call Disturbed either rock or metal. It doesn't fit cleanly into rock, for sure, and the closest metal sub-genre would have to be alt metal, as nu-metal han't applied to Disturbed for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockMaster (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre update

Ok, this has gone far enough, first of all, yes Danorama I saw the note at the top of the page but Rock just does not describe Disturbed at all, U2 are rock, Machine Head are not rock, therefore neither are Disturbed. Metal best describes Disturbed, no subgenres should be stated, Disturbed are just Metal, nothing else, not Grindcore or Metalcore, we should just change the genre to Metal, or possibly nu-metal, although I personally disagree with the nu-metal lable, it could be argued. Can we please change it to "a metal band" and leave it as such Jay794 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. As I have said earlier, putting "is a metal band", would cause a neutrality issue, since their "metal" status is debated. They are often referred to as nu metal, which is not considered metal by many members of the underground metal community. Therefore, putting "is a metal band" would be controversial. Since metal is a type of rock, putting "is a rock band" does not exclude the possibility that Disturbed plays metal. Since Wikipedia has strict policies concerning the neutral point of view in articles, it is legitimate that the introduction remains neutral. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when does the "underground metal community" decide what is and what isn't metal? M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if this "labeling" is improper or not. Fact is, using the term "metal band" IMPLIES that nu metal is heavy metal, and that is a controversial statement, which is the reason why it should stay the way it is. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when has being called "a rock band" been so uncontroverisial? It's being debated here, isn't it? Their nu-meral label alone is debatable. So to call them simply "metal" in the text, and to write perhaps..."Nu-metal, Alt Metal, Hard Rock" under genre wouldn't be such a stretch, would it? This way, everyone gives and gets a little. The nu-metal influences are noted, as well as their other influences. And since the genre is so contested, and "rock" doesn't even come close to describing them, to put metal would be a more suitable alternative. Granted, I would hold that just "metal" is inadequate, but at least this way we recognize that they are *not* a primarily rock band, and that they do have at least some nu-metal in them. How's that sound?-RockMaster-talk|contribs 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disturbed is Nu Metal...they're not heavy metal what so ever. --Deathwish238 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deathwish, remember to indent your replies to a comment using colons at the beginning of the line.
As for RockMaster's idea, I agree. I've always considered Disturbed to be alternative metal (I labeled it as such in my iTunes library), but if we have to reach a compromise, let's do it. we write Disturbed is a metal band, then, under the genre heading in the infobox, we write Alternative metal, nu metal, hard rock. Or, we could write Disturbed is a hard rock band and list the genres as I just did in the previous sentence. Either way is okay, just so we can end this genre warring once and for all. 21655 τalk/ ʃign 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The golden rule on the genre debates

I came into editing this article well over a year ago now, and forcefully stopped the repeated changing of the genre back and forth. I'm glad that since then, people have continued to monitor this issue. I'd like to remind all those debating the matter of what I did, and what anyone who wishes to change the genre entries must do - you need to reference from a notable source. If you can find a reference, you can get it done, but you can't remove other referenced genres without yet more work. I personally hate kerfuffle over notability, but all it means here is a respected and established source, such as a music magazine like NME, rather than a mate's blog. Sorry to wade in and stir things up like this (especially as I tend to not edit any more), but I just wanted to remind people LinaMishima (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey LinaMishima, glad to see you back. I remember the war we had before you started your break. Since then, a number of discussions and disagreements took place, but fortunately they were all held in a friendly and well behaved manner; No real warring (except the occasional vandalism obviously) took place. I'd say, the genre issue is in a good shape now. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 17:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks to be in great shape, and I'm glad! I just wanted to remind the continuing occasional discussion that there's a simple rule that should be followed :) LinaMishima (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also worth making this clear: the likes of NME -cannot- be considered a valid source in this debate. Just because it is published and concerns music in some form does not mean it is an authority on all musical genres. If there is a discussion as to whether Disturbed are heavy metal or not, NME has no validity, as there is no indication that they are an authority on that genre. They are an authority on mainstream music, but heavy metal isn't mainstream.

I'll give an example: You have a university history student and a university history professor, let's say in Roman history. The professor will of course be a more valid source on that period, but I know from experience that a qualification in history does not require knowledge of many periods, rather detailed knowledge of a few. As such, it is perfectly possible that the student will be a more reliable source on certain areas than the professor will be. Point being: being qualified in one area of something does not equal qualified in all areas. Prophaniti (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding band members, certification, genre... verify all edits

I have noticed various IP editors repeatedly changing album certification, one change to previous band members, the age-old genre dispute, and other alterations. These are all being done without so much as a reference ever being mentioned. For RIAA certifications, we need a reference to the sales data itself. For band members we really want biographies of them and of the band. For genre... thankfully that one has been done to death already. Sources, sources, sources please people. They should not be hard to find. Please can no such changes go through without first being referenced. For more information, please see WP:V and WP:RS. LinaMishima (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with that, but unfortunately, anons don't usually read rules or warnings and simply edit to what they want, so this note is fairly futile. Dan (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
But it lets other editors know what I am proposing, and lets us put in edit summaries when reverting back changes "See the talk page", which might get them involved. It may also mean that someone here who knows where to find the references can grab them and settle this. LinaMishima (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, let's hope for the best then, and good looking out. :) Dan (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] band members religion.

I think it is worth mentioning that each member of the band has a different religion. If I am wrong I am sorry. - Wickanprince —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.51.68 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever been mentioned that they are religious... I know Dave is ethnically Jewish, but from some themes suggested in their lyrics, I would assume they were not religious. Even if they were and had been made public, I don't think it'd be relevant to th article. Dan (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
actually a lot of dave's lyrics are about how religion does more damage than good.68.255.231.153 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. They are from three different religons. ask any die hard fan. Just look at the logog for. Believe. It signifies all of the band members religious belifs. if not watch this video [[2]] it was made by a fan. it cannot be used as a source. but with 30 minutes of research tops. it can be confirmed. (Masterxak (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

I really don't think that each member of the band has a different religion. The CD, Believe, dosen't necessarily mean they are religious just because there is a symbol on the front cover made of different religious symbols or by the fact there are sort of religious songs on the CD. Seriously, look it through; do the members of Disturbed sound religious? Prepsear (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The cover of Believe isn't showing the bands religions. It's showing that religions don't have to be so divided. David is jewish and none of the other band members have revealed if they're religious or not. (as far as I know) Hav0xx (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the cover of Believe shows the bands religions, I'm saying that the CD cover shows different religious symbols, not necessarily the band's religions. Prepsear (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, that was directed at Masterxak. Sorry for the confusion. Hav0xx (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact look it up. Each memember of the band is from different religions. It is talked about by David and within the interview he actually stated how he opposed his father for forcing his Jewish religion upon David. This explains why in so many song he speaks of, interprets or insults religion. I cannot give you the source as the last time i checked it was when Believe was brand new to shelves, but if you Google it you'll be sure to find it. Even the site songfacts.com should be able to give truer meanings behind songs, and the band itself. But to sum it up, Each memeber is from a different religion. The Believe logo was the 4 religions, put into the one. This was to say that although they are all from different religions, music has no religion and can come together to check it out. I will not add anything into the main article as i respected that you'd rather sources before, but if you read about them and read between the lines sometimes you'll get the information plus alot more. As for Masterxak, fans will make up any relevant shit just to feel special. I'm a fan of Disturbed myself but i know not to go writing stupid SHIT about 'die hard fans' because unless you can back it up, you got no leg to stand on and just look like a complete tool. Rupert 59 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)