Talk:Land of Confusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Land of Confusion article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Peer review Land of Confusion has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] In Flames Cover!

Does anyone seem to notice that In Flames does a cover of this song, and its incredibly cool?

[edit] Trivia

There are 2 shots of an actual human being in the video (not the same person in both). Most people will get the actual baby's hands at the end, but do you know the second? (answer in a day or so) CFLeon 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 70.44.38.145 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed split

I don't think the Disturbed version should receive its own page. It wasn't that long that it required a split, and it helps to read about the original video and then the Disturbed video to see the parallels. I'm not just saying this because I'm the one who's worked on this article from creation to now, but there are many songs whose original and cover versions are on the same page; only in extreme circumstances are they separated. Any thoughts on this? Anthony Hit me up... 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry but disturbed released thier own version of the song which was released as a single, BTW if this was just a general cover both versions would of course be on the same page but as it was released as a single it warrents its own page. Childzy (Talk|Contribs) 11:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Disturbed did release its own version of the song, however, I can't say for sure whether or not that particular version warrants its own page. See Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) — Mariah Carey covered the song and released it as a single. There is still not an independent article on that cover version. The cover is included as a subsection of the main article. AreJay 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems stupid and a waste...another example of this is the You Can't Hurry Love article which was also merged with Phil Collins' cover version...regardless of the "changes" disturb made to this song, it doesn't need a seperate article! --Skully Collins 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Disturbed song doesn't need its own page. In the interests of clarity, it should be combined with the Genesis song, possibly at the bottom after all the Genesis information (after all, the Genesis song did come first). Also, if someone wants to know about the Disturbed album, they can click on the Ten Thousand Fists link and go from there.

I agree on merging it, a seperate article doesn't make sense. However, the disturbed section should not be trunctated too hard, nor be downgraded to the bottom of the page. --Twsx 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure I see that the song is important enough to warrant an article at all. The Disturbed cover certainly doesn't merit one in its own right. In Flames did a cover, too, which pre-dates the Disturbed release, was far better, and that doesn't have its own article. Cain Mosni 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i love the song remix, dont merge it! --Striver 22:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I mean, Todd McFarlane made the video, the guy is a comic book legend! --Striver 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan magazine. Whether you love it or not does not validate it's need for a separate article. Cain Mosni 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I know :( Just saying it anyway... Ok, how about this: since it is a remix of a notable song, made by a notable band, with video from a notable artists, it is a notable video in it self. Better? --Striver 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
... Excepting that whatever you say of it, it is still only a cover. And it's only a song. As I've said - I'm not convinced that the original is notable enough to warrant an article. Cover versions certainly don't. Besides - the Disturbed article is a scene-by-scene transcription, not an encyclopaedia piece. Without the transcription, there would be no substance to it at all, barring a couple of lines saying that Disturbed made a cover, which was accompanied by a video directed by McFarlane. It's not like (say) Bohemian Rhapsody or Do They Know It's Christmas which had very different but very particular cultural impacts that merit exploration in an article. I happen to like it too, but in the end it's just another disposable video which had its 15 minutes of fame on MTv. It's been; it's gone. It was of no consequence. Non-notable. Move along, nothing to see... Cain Mosni 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 :( *sad face*. Im not familiar with what makes a music video notable, so i'm moving on...--Striver 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of debate

OK, it's clear that the consensus was for a merger, so I went ahead and did it. But the Disturbed section is little more than a play-by-play of the video (I should know, I wrote it). Originally I wanted this to start heading towards FA status; that has obviously been derailed. I'm a little busy with law school in the real world, and can help when available, but can someone bring this page closer to at least good status? I was almost there before Disturbed released their cover, which threw the whole thing off (not that I mind, they did a great job with it). Anyway, sorry to rant, but at least we're back to one solid article (the Disturbed page is now a redirect to this one). Anthony Hit me up... 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe this article can still become a featured article.SOADLuver 14:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song's meaning section

I removed the section title "Song's meaning," which attempted to provide an interpretation of the song's lyrics, as a blatant WP:NOR violation. (It was completely unsourced.) Interpretations of artistic works must come from reliable sources, not from Wikipedians themselves. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Famous People and Characters seen in the Video

I removed Anna Nicole Smith from this list. Even though I haven't seen the video in years, Ms. Smith didn't grace the cover of Playboy until the spring of 1992, and the world had not heard of her when the video was released in 1986.Cvieg 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Paul

In the Disturbed video, at about 3:26, is that Ron Paul? Tim Long 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split the Disturbed version to its own article

I have added a split tag to the beginning of the disturbed cover section. It just doesn't seem right that the information about this version and its video should be restricted to the bottom of an article on the original version. It also seems odd to me that this was even merged into this article in the first place. Right now the word counts of the main parts of the Genesis version vs the Disturbed version are 775 to 996 respectively. With nearly a thousand words (not including image captions and templates and the like) it can surely be split from the Genesis version's article again and stand on its own. Robotman1974 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See the above discussion. For one, the Disturbed section can be seriously pared down; there's more information on describing the video than there is on anything else, so it's mostly fluff. Not to mention that cover versions (with very few exceptions) are included in the main article as a rule. Therefore, I oppose a proposed split, and instead propose a cut-down on the Disturbed part of the article. Anthony Hit me up... 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose General consensus is that articles about different versions of the same song are about largely similar topics and can/should be covered in the same article. There is always work being done to merge articles about different versions of the same song. See, for example, Without You or I Will Always Love You. There are some articles that remain unmerged at this point in time, but that is not an indication that they should not merged, simply that it's not been done yet. GassyGuy 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We've been all round this topic already, and in fact a separate article was re-merged only a few months ago, precisely because it isn't a work in its own right. Disturbed only produced a cover version (albeit a good one), which is nothing more than a deivation of the original. The song is still the same (barring one line), and there is utterly no reason (other than fan worship) for considering it a separate entity. Most of the wordage is just a transcription of, and unsupported essay on, the video most of which could stand to be removed - this isn't a film catalogue, after all. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "fan worship" comment above, I did not suggest the split because of the reasons your comment would seem to suggest. For the record, I've never heard the Disturbed version nor seen the video. My concern is that the current page looks like (and basically is) two separate articles that have been stuck together. I still think they should be split, but if the consensus is to keep them this way, I'll abide by that. Robotman1974 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were the worshipful fan in question, merely that the excessive text concerning this particular cover version was a result of such, and that rather than hiving it off it should be drastically edited down to being what it is - merely one stage of the the song's popularity. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the split tag from the article. Robotman1974 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed Video information

Disturbed Video information Can some one get some info on what happens in the Disturbed Video and not just the style?--User:blood sliver 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR?

I removed the following from the section on Disturbed's cover:

  • "The world is also portrayed as some sort of totalitarian police state, whose military is attacking the people of New York. This may reflect a worst case scenario post 9/11 Patriot Act type world that many believe the world is becoming."

This smacked of original research to me, since it wasn't backed up with any kind of citation. Unless we can get an actual citation for it, the statement is too inflammatory for the article. Even with citation though, it probably should be re-worded to have a more neutral POV. Umbralcorax 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individuals in the video

Is anybody verifying all these additions of people appearing in the video? I recommend that each of them be tagged with "Fact" tags, where the applicable reference would be the time in the video where the individual appears. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly - though I'm tempted to say we just ditch the list altogether since none of it is verified, unless someone can find a written reliable source that documents who was featured in it (I mean, it's going to take quite a bit of work to document the times when each person appears, and that would surely border on original reseach anyway...) Mdwh (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbed video?

Does anyone want to make a detailed description of it? The genesis version has a description with pictures, the disturbed article doesn't really tell anything other than the artist that created it. 204.14.12.35 16:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)