Talk:Disturbed (band)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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)

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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

They are metal —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)

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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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)

FIX THE SINGLES CHART NOW!

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

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)

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)

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)

You heard the man! Get!! Powerslave (talk|cont.) 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

From WT:

1. (transitive) To obtain, purchase or acquire.

I'm going to get a computer tomorrow from the discount store.

You need to get permission to leave early.

2. (transitive) To receive.

I got a computer from my parents for my birthday.

He got a severe reprimand for that.

3. (transitive) To fetch.

Can you get my bag from the living-room, please?

...therefore prompting the question "Get what?". Or perhaps you mean git? How dare you.... 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Thank you! RageSamurai21655 13:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 | ^talk_cont | 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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 | ^talk_cont | 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 | ^talk_cont | 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)

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)

What else is there? That and the video are already included, there's really nothing left. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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 | ^talk_cont | 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)

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 | ^talk_cont | 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)

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 | ^talk_cont | 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)

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)

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)

The symbol just shows unity of four major religions... There is no implication that each member of the band corresponds to one of those religions. Seriously, what are the chances that four guys in Chicago form a band and it just so happens they all believe in a different major religion? Zero, basically. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 01:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Powerslave. If there was chance that the members of Disturbed each come from a different religion, it would be very slim. Prepsear (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You say there is "Zero" chance 'basically', 'basically'. That is to say you doubt the idea but you do not know. It might be 1 in a Million chance but its true, each member comes from a different religion but they have put their religion and beliefs aside and became a band. Rupert 59 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being a stupid bitch again.....reverting the shit I put on here just because it's true? Stupid Wikipedians.

Genre, once again. (infobox)

I would like to pick up on the genre discussions we had in the past. The reason for that is, that the genres in the infobox are changed a lot at the moment, and we don't have the issue of the genres to be listed in the infobox settled, and therefor no version which justifies reverts. The consensus to have the headline say "is a rock band" was made and is so far uncontended. We should have the same for the infobox.

My opinion: (I'll keep this short) Disturbed we're most definitely a nu metal band to start off. Later on, partially on the Believe album, and much more clear on the Ten Thousand Fists album, influences from many sides we're notable. The best description, in my opinion, would be alternative metal – as vague as this genre description might be, it does cover it pretty good. So, in my opinion, the infobox should say "Nu metal (early work), alternative metal (later work)".

However, this all comes from a guy who knows their first three albums from A-Z, but has not yet found the time to look into their newest album. So, i would love to hear some feedback on both, the latest album and the whole issue in general. Lets achieve consensus people, lets settle this. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressive, twsx.

Having listened to Indestructible more times than I've tried to lick my elbow, I can be sure that it can come in as either alt-metal or hard rock. But that's just my opinion. More later when I remember to come back here. 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to label them as "hard rock" as Draiman said. Who has more of a right to label a band's genre than its very own frontman? Powerslave (talk|cont.) 19:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be the least reliable source of all. What if Britney Spears would call herself a death metal act? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with twsx's reasoning. The general sound of the band, on all albums, lies between nu metal and alternative metal. I don't think the "early work" and "later work" are absolutely necessary, because this issue can be delt with in the history sections in a sentence like "with the release of this album, the band's sound turned from a nu metal sound to a much more diversely influenced alternative metal," although that would be slightly biased and would definitely need a reference. I thank twsx for this initative which, I hope, will lead to a nice and strong consensus. :) Zouavman Le Zouave 20:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS : and concerning the "right" of the frontman to label his band's sound, I have to say it is ridiculous. I could form a death metal band and label it a reggae act, it would still be a death metal band. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First album was nu metal/alternative metal, second was alternative metal with a little nu metal, third was alternative metal/hard rock (with the inclusion of guitar solos on certain songs), latest is probably closest to alternative metal/heavy metal. It's like...heavy metal with an alternative structure. The structure is alternative but the riffs and mood of the songs in general are a lot closer to heavy metal than alternative metal, plus the inclusion of guitar solos pushes it ever closer to heavy metal.

However, it doesn't really matter what we think, what we need are reliable sources, which do not exist for industrial metal (which is currently listed), but do exist for genres such as hard rock and heavy metal which, right or wrong, can be easily cited by various sources and so would be valid for inclusion. James25402 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, we do have to use common sense. The two genres that best describe the band are nu metal and alternative metal, and I believe they should be the ones that get in the infobox. The details on the genre-tendencies should be described in the biography of the band when talking about the album releases. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So to translate all this discussion, I take it the result we are leaning towards is: Nu metal, alternative metal in the infobox, then add "with the release of this album, the band's sound turned from a nu metal sound to a much more diversely influenced alternative metal" or something like that (with ref) in the bio section?

By the way, I've been thinking of starting a jazz trio. Who agrees with me wanting to call it Vicious Destruction? [cue laugh track] 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 14:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that "we should use common sense". To give an example, on Bullet for My Valentine's page, heavy metal is listed as a genre and is cited. As much as I and probably many others disagree with that genre being included (and believe me, I do), it cannot be removed as it is cited content. Unless a source were to be found that specifically discredited Bullet being a heavy metal band, there is no dispute within the media and so the genre cannot be removed.

To be honest, I know that A LOT of editors disagree with Disturbed being labelled a heavy metal band, but if it is cited, it would be valid. If a credible source were to label Metallica a hardcore hip hop band, unless sources existed claiming that this opinion is ludicrous and highly inaccurate, it would have to stay. Opinions of editors do not matter in this article and I think a lot of people are forgetting this.

Also, before people start claiming that AMG is not a valid source, by wikipedia standards it would be considered as such, even if a lot of the information on that site is wrong (and it is). As hard rock and heavy metal have citations, along with nu metal and alternative metal, all four should be listed. However, industrial metal (to my knowledge) has none and should be removed. James25402 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, James25402, in that if a reliable source labels a release or artist a certain genre, that genre should most likely be cited in the article (unless it's one source among a million that cites this band/release as such). However, I disagree with you in that the editors do have a choice on where the information goes to. The infobox is not the place to discuss all different genres that people have thought could fit. The body of the article is made for that. If a part of the band's career is best described as heavy metal because it doesn't quite fit into any other subgenre, then this should be discussed in the biography of the band. The infobox is there to give an overview of what the general sound of the band is like, and it is the choice of the editors to see which ones represent the band's sound the best. To me, and to others, as I have understood, a neutral, concise solution would be nu metal and alternative metal. Honestly, I don't mind status quo, but I rather prefer this solution because it is much more concise. Zouavman Le Zouave 14:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we are going to disagree again. For me, the infobox should be a summary of key information appearing the article, placed at the top for anyone looking for a quick overview of the band. If a particular genre is cited in the article, naturally the summary should also include it (exceptions could be made where bands have crossed into too many styles - for example, The Beatles, who influenced more sub-genres of rock and pop than it would be worthwhile mentioning). If the genre were omitted from the infobox, it would fail to do its job in summarising the article adequately. As Disturbed only appear to have four cited genres, this does not seem to be too many to mention and can be easily summarised in the infobox. James25402 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the discussion about the genre of the music is longer than most of their albums... and seems to do nothing other re-tracing old discussions has me worried the most about this article. The fact that we are discussing for months what we should be labeling a band, when they are perfectly capable of doing so themselves, honestly worries me. In reading through all the discussions, both sides have merit, HOWEVER the fact that the only real genre that actually encompasses all the cited sub-genres leaves us with having to say that they are a rock band. The information that is stated in the InfoBox may seem contrary to this, but it is statistically correct. The fact that the frontman claims his band to be Hard Rock cannot be dismissed, as it is easy to see the influences and this may also tell us where he is taking the band. If someone were to create a Reggae group and call themselves Death Metal, then they would instantly be considered "not a credible source," but this is not what's happening here. There is a certain logic to what he is saying, therefore retaining his credibility, and as such I believe that what is stated on the article should be left intact. 81roc (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. If a reggae band labels itself as a death metal act, the article's body should have a sentence talking about it, with a source, but not in the infobox. The band's judgement on its genre is worthless; they are not musical journalists, they are musicians. It is the job of musical journalists, who are reliable sources, to claim what their genre(s) is/are, and it is the job of Wikipedia editors to make a concise and neutral summary in the infobox as well as a description of their genres, styles, and influences in the body of the article. Let's not switch the roles around. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. Disturbed are musicians and what they consider themselves to be is important to the article, as it is a noteworthy opinion of the band, but it is not encyclopaedic in the least. It should certainly not be used as the reference upon which we base our opening sentence of the article, or even a reference which influences the infobox.

In this case I can see why changing the opening sentence to "Disturbed is a hard rock band...." could be considered, as alternative metal, heavy metal and nu metal are all forms of hard rock music, not just rock music as is currently stated, but as hard rock is generally more specific than rock it could easily confuse people as to Disturbed's style (some will consider them to be heavier than hard rock). Rock music is more neutral than hard rock so I think it should remain as it is. James25402 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This conversation has gone on long and is actually quite amusing to read. The point of a valuable source, its correct. Find a valuable source, and cite it therefore unless it can be disproved it should stay. The info box should be a summary of what the band is. SO why not solve everything? Simply put 'Genre- Nu/ Alternative Metal - Hard Rock' and beneath it put the citation found. That way fans and readers can take it as they please and everybody wins. Don't like? Then give us feedback, but remember that the genre of the band is not the be all to end all. Rupert 59 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is wrong with you people, there are so many discussions on the genre so if me saying this has been said im sorry, there was too much to this argument. THIS IS wikifrigginpedia in case some of you didnt know. Who cares what any of you, or me "THINK" Their genre is, look and find a verifiable and reliable resource.. problem solved. Guitar world.... or something..... XXLegendXx (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree. If there is sufficient material to cover, we could even make a "genre" section so that the consensus can settle calmly. Zouavman Le Zouave 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Metal in opening sentence

Ok, once again I changed the lead sentence to "...is a metal band" Why? Because if you google Disturbed, guess what they're OFFICIAL SITE says? "Official site for the metal band Disturbed, with news, tour dates and diaries, and multimedia." I'm pretty sure the OFFICIAL SITE is a pretty reliable source. Leave it alone.

96.242.38.28 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Jack

Not only is the bands own website not a reliable source at all, the topic of Disturbed being affiliated with heavy metal music is heavily debated, and a statement such as this is therefor highly controversial. That is why, a few months ago, it was proposed to change the headline to call them a "rock band", which can obviously not be challenged. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 20:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed with twsx. Notice that rock does not exclude metal, since heavy metal is a subgenre of rock. However, limiting the opening sentence to metal would exclude other forms of rock music. This would be non-neutral when we consider the controversy surrounding the band's genre. Read WP:NPOV if you like. Zouavman Le Zouave 02:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not challenging this in any way, because I agree that when there is controversy, it's best to use the most neutral statement possible, however, what is this argument behind Disturbed not being metal? Is it because people believe Disturbed are nu metal, or because they believe they're hard rock? I'm just trying to understand the situation a bit more here.

Also, heavy metal was removed (again) so I've added it back to the infobox. James25402 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly participants and fans of the extreme metal scenes do not consider Disturbed a metal band, a notable example being the band's absence of Encyclopaedia Metallum. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that is the case, but what reasons do these people have for thinking this way? Is it because they were/are (depending on your opinion) a nu metal band, or because they think they are a hard rock band? James25402 (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I have no source to back this up, I believe it is because numerous people of those communities see Disturbed more as an alternative rock band rather than a metal band. Some people have a more restrictive definition of metal, and that's all. In any case, the reasons don't matter that much. Hope I answered your question. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt Konopinski

Could some one verify and provide a source that he was ever their bass player. I have never heard of him except for on Wikipedia Disturbed92893 (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While this is not a reliable source, a google search of his name obviously links him with the band. Sites like this one pop up, which, although not extremely reliable, give the same information. However, I have found no trace of him on the official website... Zouavman Le Zouave 11:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Hey, I just wanted you guys to know that I found a bunch of photographs from the Mayhem Festival on Flickr under a free liscense (here). If you'd like to use them I suggest you upload them to Wikimedia Commons, if you need any further help with it I'd be happy to help. REZTER ^TALK ø 00:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone Know What Happened?

Sorry this has nothing to do with the article (well it might) but I heard something happened to the band sometime August 1, I believe around nighttime. I know it was after their show in Virginia. Apparently their were in some accident or something, I dont know any details right now. Zombified22 (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I heard that their bus crashed... someone was injured and had to be taken to the hospital I believe, but it wasn't a member of the band. Here's the link to the story: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=102003. Dan (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I know its really late now, but I looked and it was their crew that crashed as they weren't in the van. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "vh1bio" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/disturbed/bio.jhtml|title=VH1 biography}}
  • Biography - VH1.com

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I think there should be 2 genres in the infobox:
- Nu metal [3],[4]
- Alternative metal [5],[6]
I don't think it's necessary to write Hard rock in the infobox because there are not enough sources. To write heavy metal in the infobox is wrong because they don't play traditional heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-Jay215 (talk • contribs)

Previous consensus was reached to have them the way they are currently. To contest this, more opinions are needed. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, then we need more opinions. But I think opinions without reliable sources are worthless. I think it's the best to write the "main" genres in the infobox and the rest in a new section ("Musical style and influences" or similar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-Jay215 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. Disturbed's latest album is a cross between alternative metal and heavy metal, so heavy metal does apply. A lot of people also don't consider Disturbed to be a metal band, so hard rock is fine too. There are sources for both so I see no reason to change anything. James25402 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't totally disagree with Jay-Jay215. Alternative metal is generally seen as a subgenre of heavy metal anyways, so placing heavy metal can be slightly redundant. For hard rock, I don't mind keeping it there, but I wouldn't oppose its removal. I am completely fine with the current arrangement of the infobox as well, it's rather neutral and accurate. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But to write the 2 (main) genres in the infobox and the others in a new created section called "Musical style" would make the page more clearly and precisely. The infobox should not include all related genres and styles. It should give a short overview about the band and nothing more. That's my opinion.

I'd agree. In my opinion, nu metal and alternative metal should be used. Though, it seems there is a general trend to call them hard rock, especially since the latest album (which i can't comment on, as i have not yet listened into it). ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Source in infobox

There has been a small "reverting conflict" over the past 24 hours concerning this addition.

1. It should not be added into the infobox. References within the infobox, especially in the genre list, hurt the integrity and readability of the box. Although i am not sure if this very thing has been discussed to reach consensus, i do remember multiple instances in other infobox-related discussions on Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist where there was general agreement that references should not be used in infoboxes.
2. I, for one, would not consider a random comment in a random book, published through a very random website, to be a reliable source. Also, it is hard to verify a reference from a book which you do not own. If a citation from that passage in the book was somewhere on the web, it would probably make a difference, depending on how the content actually is. This is a different matter though, if the source is to be kept, it should simply be added elsewhere.

Comments are welcome. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how it hurts readability, but I'm more than happy for it to be moved anywhere else, I more object to the pedantic nature of continually removing it rather than someone just cleaning it up as they see fit.

With regards to the source reliability: This is a physical book which I hold in my hand right now, and regardless of it's origins that makes it a reliable source by wikipedia's standards. Check for it on amazon if you like. Nor is it a "random comment in a random book". It's a very clear placing of the band in the "nu metal" subgenre in a book specifically devoted to heavy metal. And true, you might not be able to see it if you don't own the book, but then this would be true of any source, I don't see how it's relevant.

Of course, if anyone wants to argue that published sources originating from websites aren't reliable, I'll throw every bit of support I have behind that. Because if Essi Berelian's book isn't reliable for that reason, allmusic sure as hell isn't. Indeed, the fact that allmusic has some kind of published format is the single solitary reason anyone could give me for why it can be considered reliable at all. Prophaniti (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Guy

If we can find a free picture, can we include a picture of "The Guy" under the section of the article with him? After all he is their offical mascot. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there are any that's won't violate copyright laws. Disturbedmb (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Music as a Weapon IV?

Someone added the bands for the upcoming tour, but its not sourced and Disturbed isn't even done with Mayhem Festival so is it fake? Disturbedfan24 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Mayhemfest ended on August 16. Check Disturbed's website, could be real, could be fake. But if it's not sourced, it don't belong here. The Guy _complain ^edits 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I thought it lasted until mid-September. But whatever that's still unsourced. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Watch out, a few users are about to violate the 3 Revert Rule, namely Prophaniti. Just a warning. If the rule gets violated, you will get an alert on your talk page. The Guy _complain ^edits 22:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sickness

Just curious the article says 4 million copies have been sold, but its only been certified 3x Platium. Why is that? Disturbedfan24 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Respected?

The opening paragraph states something along the lines of Disturbed being one of the most respected and popular bands of the hard rock genre. I think their three US number one albums in a row speaks for itself that Disturbed are one of the most popular, but while I really love this band, I've never been of the impression that they were particularly respected. The current source for this is the band's own official website - surely this is not an adequate citation. I'm all for the mention of Disturbed being one of the most popular, but respected I would have to recommend somebody remove until a citation is found. James25402 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is nobody going to comment on this? I would've thought a ton of the 'haters' at least would support me, but still the sentence remains in the article. I would strongly recommend against making such claims that a nu-metal band (at least in the past) are highly-respected without the providing of a reliable citation (Disturbed's official website, as is currently used to support it, surely does not suffice), as nu-metal tends to be one of the most disrespected genres out there. James25402 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice your post before. I would have to agree with ye, that sentence can't stay like that without a proper reference. I've removed it alltogether. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with James & twsx, this sentence has no reason of appearing on the article. :) Zouavman Le Zouave 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Woops, i thought i removed it. :P Seems I messed up. Removed it now. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone just now vandalized the discography section. The changed the title of the first CD from "The Sickness" to "the bastards". I'll go fix it in a second --Dragonshardz (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow that was really badass of them... lol. 216.12.107.31 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard rock (disputed)?

I don't know about everyone else, but I think this looks really awkward in the infobox. Are there specific sources out there which have disputed this? Otherwise, I don't really see the need for it. I mean, I personally would dispute that Disturbed are hard rock (although there are others who do not share my opinion that heavy metal should be listed), but my opinion is not relevant. How about we just add citations for hard rock and heavy metal into the following sentence of the article, that way everything is sourced?

Originally classified as a nu metal band,[1] they are now regarded as alternative metal.[3]

Originally, this sentence mentioned Disturbed also being considered a hard rock or heavy metal band with citations, which I think would be the best way to go, but that part was removed a few months ago. James25402 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre details fixed - discuss references before editing ever again!

Ok guys, I'm ashamed. I stop editing wikipedia regularly, and you go and 1) remove carefully found references for genres, 2) someone adds a "(disputed)" tag and it sticks in place (when there is no reference regarding any dispute at all), 3) People are still constantly changing the genre details without digging around for references. As the set which I put in place were well referenced, I have restored the original line detailing the references, and the associated genre details. The golden rule on genre changes has always been to fully reference, and that is still the case. Even if you don't like some reference (such as the person further up on talk who mentioned NME), if they are a solid trustworthy source of information that information stays until contradicted by an equal or better source. No one is to editorialise their own tastes and opinions on the genre section. If you dispute anything detailed there, come talk about it here. LinaMishima (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For the introduction line, consensus on this very page found that phrasing it as "a rock band" would be more neutral, for rock includes metal. This was done following a community decision on this very page. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 19:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That change is fine, I'll agree with that - the more generic title seems more appropriate. I've re-added the reference you removed in the proper new place, so as to not leave a hanging reference. LinaMishima (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding all of that stuff, Lina. I agree with you 100%. James25402 (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note: It seems that the VH1 bio that forms part of the genre assertions (and is used in other places) was not fixed in stone, and has subsequently been changed. Argh. It looks like we might want to go on a source hunt again, I suspect. LinaMishima (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New Live DVD

Indestructible from Germany was released today exclusively from Best Buy. I wont add it to the discography cause I dont have a source from a actual website, unless Best Buy and Disturbed's websites count.

Best Buy Link: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9104444&st=indestructible+in+germany&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1927800

Disturbed's Link: www.disturbed1.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.107.21 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that a typo on the official site? They state "Indestructible In Germany Live DVD Available 12/28 Exclusively At Best Buy!" (note the 12/28). Although the BestBuy link says it was released on 11/27/2008...

Anyway, why shouldn't the official site be a good source? :) --Madmax.ptz (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people say that an official website isn't that reliable, because its only self-produced claims. 69.250.47.185 (talk) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

3 number one albums in a row.

There are other rock bands besides the six listed in this article that have released three number one albums in a row. One example is Led Zeppelin. This is confusing me. 24.171.63.182 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

a (hopeful) final word about the genre issue

the article does have it right in the genre box.disturbed is,or has been nu metal,alt. metal,hard rock, and just metal period. now we have to look at some facts here: 1.nu metal,rather some metal fans like it or not,is a type of metal.look at the wikipedia article on metal.the definition gives clear evidence that nu metal is a type of metal (if the fact that its in the name didnt strike you earlier).

2.metal is a type of rock.sure its drastically different from regular rock,but do you think there woud be a black sabbath without the beatles or elvis?forget about it.

3.disturbed is metal.when metal is defined in its most basic senses,disturbed hits all the checkpoints.

4.the albums got less heavy after the sickness.and believe was by far the least heavy.but by indestructible,you see them regaining more metal,especially their brand of nu metal.if "inside the fire" isnt nu metal,what is?

in conclusion,disturbed,by definition and usage,are by all means metal,nu metal,alternative metal,and hard rock.and whats even better? wikipedia tells you all of this.look it up.can we quit useless debate now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.30.43 (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would've agreed with you if you hadn't tried to label "Inside the Fire" as nu metal. Seriously, that song is so far from nu metal. It's more a combination of alternative metal and straight up heavy metal. Indestructible has no nu metal on it whatsoever, while I will concede each of the other albums did have at least a little, with The Sickness and Ten Thousand Fists having the most. Although this is all POV so there's little point in it being discussed. James25402 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a few things to note. One; these are all your viewpoints, so they bear no relevance here. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for us to reference in its own article, anyways. Two; please do not type like this,it bugs me so much,when people are too lazy to space their marks.its annoying,and nobody will take you seriously here,anyways.so you might as well type properly,please.thank you. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

this isnt really POV at all.if you notice,i didnt say a thing that wikipedia doesnt say.i know wikipedia cant be referenced in its own article.this was a statement of what we know, not what i think,or what you think.and as for indestructible having no nu metal on it,id say at 'inside the fire' has at least some nu metal features,such as the the guitar and drums,although i will agree its closer to alternative metal.and the guy talking about my typing,why should i take some guy who criticizes me for supposed use of point of view,and then presents his own annoyances as fact seriously? do you think because i dont space and capitalize,it makes me lazy? thats incredibly contradictory.besides,anything i said that sounded biased was problably sarcasm or so forth.not that i think sarcasm has a place in an encylopedia.thats just the way it type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.30.43 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

First you said you are aware that we can't use one Wikipedia article as a reference for another, then supplied that your points are made valid because they are contained within another Wikipedia article (rendering null the former point). Then you told me that you're not using your own point-of-view, then in the same breath said that you think "Inside the Fire" possesses some nu metal elements (contradicting your first point, once again). You speak in circles. Also, please understand that I was not trying to criticize you (my apologies if it sounded as if I was). I was simply trying to help you; people here take you less seriously if you type in that manner. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with The Guy. The unlogged user uses his/her points of view and unsourced Wikipedia statements as arguments, when really there is nothing to argue. There are two points in genre debates : neutrality, and reliable sources. The introduction and infobox is fine right now, for it is unbiased and sourced properly. The style section should be referenced, or the material on it has no reason of being published on Wikipedia, for it is unsourced and potentially challengeable. Zouavman Le Zouave 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To clear some things up,I didnt say that I wasnt using my own point of view talking about "Insde the fire". Thats my opinion,but to be honest anyone with ears could hear that.Oh well. Secondly,I think you misunderstood what I said about wikipedia. Although I hate to be repetative,im quite aware that wikipedia cant be referenced in its own article. I was stating that if wikipedia is supposed to be reliable,which it is, then it seems alright for me to use it to make a point even if that kind of use wouldnt be acceptable in terms of editing and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.160 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right that you never said you weren't using your own opinion, but I never accused you of saying you didn't. My point is that your opinion isn't relevant, and the bit about Wikipedia being reliable is irrelevant, because, as you already stated, it's not relevant for editing. This entire talk is irrelevant, now, and you've just proven that, perhaps not on purpose. This will be my last reply, there's nothing more to contribute; case closed. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this discussion leads nowhere. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Let’s see if we can take it somewhere meaningful then. Let’s simply have a look at various sources and see what we can find.

VH1 itself can be discarded: the bio there appears to simply be the allmusic guide one, so if we use Allmusic we don’t need VH1 as well. I’ll include accepted review sites, because while some of them might not truly be the best, they are RS. If anyone wishes to add more genuinely reliable sources, go for it.

• Allmusic – Heavy metal, alternative metal, rap-metal (this one could be used as nu metal, since allmusic itself doesn’t use the term nu metal)
• Essi Berelian's "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" – Nu metal
• Metal Observer – Nu metal
• Popmatters – Hard rock
• Rolling Stone – Nu metal. We also have the Rolling Stone link in the opening paragraph terming them hard rock.
• NME – Nu metal
• IGN music – One refers to them as nu metal, the other more generally as rock

So, pretty clearly the overall consensus is nu metal. We have a total of 5 sources for it, 6 if we count allmusic’s “rap-metal” tag (and more still when we consider that several of Metal Observer's staff give the label). Then we have 1 for “heavy metal”, 1 for “alternative metal” and another 3 for rock/hard rock.

As such, I think the best thing for source representation would be to include the genres “nu metal” and “hard rock”. Yes, this leaves out alternative metal and heavy metal, but these have only one real source between them, and both are basically covered by the nu metal tag anyway. So unless there are other sources for those (or other) genres, nu metal and hard rock seem to be the firm source consensus. Prophaniti (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the infobox is not the only location for information. Where something is properly referenced within the article, the infobox should reflect the article. Other than that, I think I agree with the narrowing, which now more accurately reflects the lede (although we may wish to change hard rock to just plain rock to match the lede better). LinaMishima (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is alt. metal really worth including though? I'm not massively fussed either way, it's just there's only a single source for it, whereas the others have many more sources to them, and nu metal itself largely covers alt. metal. It's worth including in the article, certainly, but the infobox is best used to represent overall source consensus. Thoughts? As far as rock and hard rock go, I think hard rock is best: it is the more commonly used term, and the lead say rock simply because that's the most general, all-encompasing term, it covers nu metal, hard rock, alt. metal, etc. Prophaniti (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Source weight" is not a Wikipedia policy. You really should get that into you're head. It's sourced, so it should stay on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlecTrevelyan402 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue weight. Also note I'm not saying it shouldn't be on the page, I'm simply raising the issue that it may not be a significant enough view to include in the infobox. And please watch your tone: I'm trying to be polite about this. Prophaniti (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this change, but even if my opinion turns out to be in the minority, you should've at least left heavy metal in the opening paragraph as Disturbed HAVE been described as heavy metal, which was previously stated in the article. This was not inaccurate or unsourced. I also think you should've left heavy metal in the infobox and at least given other editors the opportunity to provide more sources BEFORE the change. I'm going to review all of these sources of Disturbed being nu-metal and hard rock, because I have a feeling a lot of them are going to be several years old, whereas the heavy metal source (which there may well be more of out there and I'll attempt to find them) was more recent and was able to review materials Disturbed have released since their nu-metal days. James25402 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, if you can find the sources then do so. I'm not trying to force this article one way or the other, I'm simply trying to make it reflect the sources. Nor am I denying that they are termed striaght up heavy metal. But the point is the source is in the minority, as is alt. metal, and so it's debatable as to whether it's worth putting them in the infobox itself, which is for summing up source consensus. Prophaniti (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

James, wikipedia should not follow recentism. In the case of a band's styles changing over time, all prominent styles should be listed. This means that you cannot scour sources by date in an attempt to 'eliminate' a genre listing. If this is desired, you need to find sources of greater reliability that correct the other sources, rather simply attempt disproof by recentism. To be quite frank, I think everyone here is sick of the micromanagement that the genre listings bring, and I find it quite sad that when ever I am not on wikipedia to monitor changes, people continue to toggle the listings and even, apparently, remove perfectly good sources without adequate explanation. I shall note that after a quick scan of the sources, I would support the removal of "heavy metal" from the infobox, since the sole good reference currently in the article for this appears to be in a quote about what they are not like. LinaMishima (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks LinaMishima. I personally am not overly bothered, I just came to make an attempt to actually look at and sum up the sources. The consensus is quite firmly nu metal and hard rock. Only one source seems to mention alt. metal and heavy metal. Also note it mentions rap metal. And indeed, another point to bear in mind: allmusic doesn't use the term "nu metal" as one of it's actual genres. See Lostprophets' debut album for example: the reviewer very firmly uses the term "nu metal", but it's no where to be found in the genres section. I'd say allmusic using "alt. metal" and "rap metal" is a fairly good indicator. I'm not saying it should be used as another source for nu metal: simply that given it's the -only- one we have for alt. metal, I really don't see the need to include it in the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not limit coverage via a concept of 'consensus', it covers all notable viewpoints according to their appropriate weight for their topic. And importantly, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONSENSUS are not about 'voting', as is often believed. I have seen no good reason to dispute the inclusion of alternative rock. To be honest, the repeated arguing over the genres is entirely without merit. What is currently covered is properly sourced. If people want to expand on the issue of genres, additions and rewrites of the styles section would be the best idea. LinaMishima (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How would folks feel about me having a bash at the "styles" section? It seems in need of some work anyway, with a number of unsourced statements, and we could include mention of one-off genre termings (like alt. metal) in there, while using the infobox to sum up the consensus. Prophaniti (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding me. I was not, in any way, shape or form, attempting to remove any of the sources using recentism. I was looking to keep heavy metal in the infobox by stating that most of the sources don't mention heavy metal because they were too old and therefore only cover part of the band's catalog. However, I will admit I looked through all of the sources and was not able to prove this. What I will say though is that if heavy metal goes, alternative metal goes too. Even if editors feel alternative metal is more appropriate than heavy metal, there is only one source for each so if one goes, both go and vice-versa. James25402 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'd support moving both into the body of the article rather than in the infobox, and keep the infobox for summing up the overall consensus. Nu metal would cover heavy metal more generally. And the only source for alt. metal, allmusic, doesn't use the genre tag "nu metal". A lot of the time when it uses alt. metal, it seems to be referring specifically to what other sources would call nu metal (see Linkin Park or Korn for instance. Both accepted by pretty much all sources as nu metal, definitive of the genre, but allmusic uses the specific tag "alt. metal"). All I mean is, if no other sources use the term, and instead many others use nu metal, then that's probably what allmusic means. Prophaniti (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, nu metal would not more generally cover heavy metal - a quick look at the history of these two makes this clear. Secondly, the infobox sums up the article, which is the result of a consensus amongst the editors as to [WP:RS]] and WP:DUE (amongst other things). Finally, please don't suggest that we should 'second-guess' a source. Such a thing is entirely against the very concept of wikipedia. Just because a source seems to disagree with others in a consistent manner, does not mean that we can 'correct' it. LinaMishima (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to take an aggressive tone, I'm not trying to push it. I'm just stating how things seem to be. It's not correcting the source, because it's fine to mention it in the body of the article. But when we have almost all sources terming them nu metal, then one source using the term alt. metal, which is uses in place of nu metal, well that has to raise the issue. Take a look at the "styles" section of articles like Lostprophets, Mudvayne or Static-X. Bands will often be labelled a great variety of genres, and to include them all in the infobox just makes it cluttered. For this reason, and the reason of the undue weight guideline, it would seem best to simply have the alt. metal tag mentioned in the body of the article, and sum up the consensus in the infobox. As another example of this sort of thing, see Allmusic's tags on death metal and black metal bands: it doesn't use separate genre tags for them, just a general "death metal/black metal". This doesn't mean we include both of them in the genre section for every black metal or death metal band, because we can interpret it in the context of the source weight overall. Prophaniti (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I previously said, if alternative metal is going to be deleted from the infobox, heavy metal should be too. I will agree with you on as much as if this is to happen, both should still be mentioned elsewhere in the article (in either the style section or integrated somewhere else in the article - perhaps album reviews). I agree with you that more sources point towards hard rock and nu metal and I agree that this needs to be addressed in the article. However, where I disagree is that alternative metal and heavy metal need to be removed from the infobox. If Disturbed were a band that have a lot of sources out there for a lot of different genres, I would completely agree that we should only keep the most sourced genres, but as there only appear to be four genres (or five if we were to consider rap metal - but if we were to look for reviews stating Disturbed have used rapped vocals, I would guess we wouldn't find any), I don't see why all of them can't stay. The way the article is right now, we are placing undue weight on alternative metal and heavy metal (particularly heavy metal - as the 'Indestructible' section mentions lots about being influenced by 80s heavy metal), but I don't feel removing alt. metal and heavy metal from the infobox is the right way to go about it. That's just my opinion, but you're free to disagree with me. James25402 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that all sounds perfectly reasonable to me, James. Personally, I feel the alt. metal and heavy metal tags in the infobox are unnecessary, as they represent a minority view on their overall genre, and that nu metal and hard rock cover their sound just fine. However, I'll happily make no change if other editors disagree with that. I'd like to see what others would have to say on it too. Prophaniti (talk) 18:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF. Wanting the policies of wikipedia to be followed is entirely to be expected. Unfortunately I can still see no other possible interpretation regarding your insistence that we should discount allmusic because they appear to be consistently wrong. Sadly this is the problem of genre listings - they are entirely subjective. Perhaps the best thing to do might be to take allmusic to WP:RS/N, as although we can't alter what a source states, we can find the source unreliable and hence unusable. The issue here is that the genre listings for disturbed are a constant source of conflict. To resolve this, a general agreement between editors has long been in place to use an inclusive listing based upon good sources. I would agree with removing heavy metal, since the only source for this we currently have is very weak and open to interpretation, but currently alternative metal appears to be properly sourced. LinaMishima (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is suggesting removing it, just moving the genre. See WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, alternative metal seems to be a minority view of this band's genre. You get cluttered infoboxes by adding every single possible genre you can come up with a source for. Landon1980 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Landon is quite correct: I'm not actually suggesting removing it all-together, and thus denying the source. I'm simply suggesting that, if we only have one solitary source for it, and even then it's a genre that could in this case be interpreted as nu metal anyway, then maybe it doesn't warrent inclusion in the infobox itself, which sums up the artist overall. I don't understand what you mean about the sources though: unless I've missed something, allmusic is the sole source for both "heavy metal" and "alt. metal". I don't think it needs to go to the reliable sources noticeboard: it is a reliable source, and I'm not disputing that, merely suggesting (and that's all this is so far, discussion and suggestion) that that particular point may be better included elsewhere so as not to give it the appearance of as much of an accepted genre term as nu metal and hard rock. To me (and maybe it is just me) the infobox genre field is there to sum up the most commonly accepted genres attributed to a band, while the "styles" section is for a more detailed description of their sound and all the other things they're called. Prophaniti (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)If anyone wants my opinion, I think these genres belonging to the minority view should be moved to the musical styles section. I always hate seeing a cluttered infobox, especially when only a couple sources define the band/artist as such. According to MOS you should aim for generality. Landon1980 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lina, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say the source for heavy metal is 'weak and open to interpretation'. Allmusic is the source being used for both alt. metal and heavy metal. Disturbed have 'heavy metal' listed under their styles and also at the beginning of their biography. Heavy metal band Disturbed came together..... Yes, the source could be placing Disturbed under 'heavy metal' as more of an umbrella term, but since we can't assume things like that the source is clearly adequate, no less adequate than it is for alt. metal, anyways. James25402 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed/remembered from a point made above: allmusic does indeed use the genre tag "rap metal", so if we're including heavy metal and alt. metal then by that same logic we have to include that too. Which means we're now onto 5 genres. Prophaniti (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So essentially we currently have a choice for the actual genre section: nu metal and hard rock; or nu metal, hard rock, alternative metal, rap metal, and heavy metal. I feel the latter is a little cluttered, 5 genres seems a bit much for a band that doesn't actually change it's sound much. Nu metal and hard rock would seem to cover it adequately, and it just illustrates the point: if we found just one more genre in a RS, we'd have 6 (IGN music very clearly applies the "alternative rock" genre, so really we have 6 already). Another and it's seven. Better to go with the consensus of nu metal and hard rock it would seem. That's just what I'd say on it though. Prophaniti (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little, I agree with you that two genres should be fine in the infobox. However, if additional sources come up which support any of the others, since having two sources would place more weight on a genre than one, these should be reconsidered if/when this happens. i.e. if another source came up listing Disturbed as rap metal, I would be of the opinion we should add it to the infobox.

We can save that discussion for another time. I'm now in agreement with you to have nu metal and hard rock in the infobox, with the others being mentioned elsewhere in the article. I believe all of the others should be mentioned, including rap metal (which I disagree with being applied to Disturbed - but it's been associated with them so should be mentioned). James25402 (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly how I feel on it. If we get other sources for the other genres, then they're worth including. It's just when we have a number of genres with just a single source for them, to include all of those would be a bit much. However, they're certainly as you say worth including in the article itself, otherwise it would appear to be outright denying the sources. Prophaniti (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

nu metal?

how is disturbed nu metal there alt metal (Seth4000 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

According to the article their both. Alternate metal is basically the same thing though. They are nu-metal anyway. Gune (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The main current discussion of genres is going on above. As for nu metal specifically, it's the same thing as on Static-X: the sources term them nu metal, so that's what we report. Prophaniti (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Politics?

Does anyone know anything about the band's (or individual band member's) politics (or lack thereof)? The video for 'Land of Confusion' suggests a strong anti-war, anti-capitalist, theme. Is this true of the band generally, or just the animator's interpretation of the lyrics? There is no mention of politics or controversy of any kind re the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.195.35 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not request this kind of information on Wikipedia, as it is not a discussion forum. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4