Talk:Land of Confusion

In Flames Cover!

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

That's your personal opinion. The In Flames cover is mentioned in the article just above the section about the Disturbed cover. Vendak (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

There are 2 shots of an actual human being in the video (not the same person in both). Most people will get the real 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)

The second shot is the guy walking between the oversized heads, towards the end? Sansmalrst (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

In checking this page, I discovered that I never gave an answer to this. Near the end of the chorus, when the puppets are bouncing up and down, there is a very brief view of the live Phil Collins. CFLeon (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ron Paul

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

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)

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)

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)

True and the statement wasn't entirely accurate either. The totalitarian police state is actually the force behind the governments who we don't see until the end of the video though we see his flag (a black $ sign on its side in a circle of white in a field of red--echoing the flag of Nazi Germany) through out the video.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is hard when you have people here who seem to have really strange ideas about what POV entails messing with the description. On top of that if you go to Disturbed's offical website and click on the Youtube link it will take you to Disturbed's offical YouTube channel. If you then show all and go to page 2 you can click on the Disturbed version of Land of Confusion. Now this is a video posted by the copyright holder through a distribution channel of their choice and yet for some loopy reason we can't link to it??? Please tell us how this makes any degree of sense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like very much to know where each individual appears. Would be nice to even hear from Phil Collins on this Jokem (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The lack of reference for the list of celebrities is problematic. The sheer number of puppets and the fact that they are caricatures makes it virtually impossible to prove or refute a claim. It also makes it difficult to combat vandalism of randomly added celebrities. For example, the list includes Thomas Gottschalk, but I can't find him anywhere in the video and don't see why a political music video would include a German TV presenter. On the other hand, at 0:34 that looks like Willy Brandt, but he's not in the list, and how can I be sure? So yes, I think the list should either be sourced, or it should be removed and the celebrities mentioned in the descriptive text of the video (as already done). Sansmalrst (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Shortcut on this discussion: If there is something about a subject that is not covered by independent reliable sources, it is likely not noteworthy and is certainly not verifiable. I have boldly removed the list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

I have put in a detailed description of the Disturbed video. I agree that a description of it needs to be in here.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DisturbedTim90 should stop deleting the description of the disturbed version. There is not much more to the video than is there and we are not writing a scene by scene description of videos. If DisturbedTim90 thinks the description is not enough then he should REWORD rather delete.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have re-worded, as I agree with DisturbedTim90. The description was too PoV, for example; when it said the business man was way too oversized, had green teeth, and weird eyes, that's POV. Some people might interpret it differently, so its POV. We want to give a description of the events in the video, not what the things in the video look like. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It said "incredibly oversized and fat businessman with green teeth and eyes" Several versions of the video are all over the place but I am using the one Disturbed themselves have put on Youtube. Let see, the businessman's teeth are clearly green in 3:39 to 3:40, his eyes are solid green at 3:41, at 3:46 we see that he is huge in comparison to to the people and fat to the point he looks like one of those old punch clowns, and at 4:03 to 4:05 we see the irises of his eye are green. Nothing here that violates Neutral point of view. Furthermore, I just got this from DisturbedTim90: "I'm sorry that I kept on deleting your description of Disturbed's "Land of Confusion" music video. I was in a bad mood during that time.". Please learn what is covered by POV and what is not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What is covered by POV is anything that can be interpreted multiple ways without a valid reference. A colour-blind person could easily say his eyes are a shade of light blue (slightly color blind, not fully), while that would not be invalid in their eyes, it would in ours. To us, it appears green. It is a matter of perception, and people perceive things using their points of view. Describing the events of the video is not POV, describing how things appeared in the video and how you perceived those things would easily be POV. It works the same with computers. Your monitor could be discolored and display a blue as a green. That's how your monitor perceives it, but that doesn't mean it's right. What I'm getting at here is that this stuff is biased towards a point of view. It's all about perceiving, for example; I do not agree that The Guy resembles a meteor when he falls to earth. I do not agree that the soldiers' masks resemble that of Darth Vader. I do not agree that the business man was "oversized." Compared to the rest of the people, yes, I agree, but that is my opinion. Like I said, it's all a matter of perceiving through your own point-of-view. In other words, we can't leave it as it was without valid references for the comparisons. I've reverted to my re-worded version due to this. Also, we really don't need to put "The video starts out with "The Guy" (Disturbed's mascot who appears on ____ and ____" when right above that paragraph it explains who The Guy is. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the weirdest thing I have read since Chariots of the Gods. By this loopy logic we cant say the Genius video puppets look like anyone because that is a POV. The utter insanity of such a position is so POV that it is not funny. While we are at it the youtube link was to Disturbed's OFFICIAL channel and every Youtube video has the date it was posted to the site that show up when you view it. In fact I can PROVE this is the case. Go to Disturbed's offical website and click on the Youtube link. This will take you to Disturbed's offical YouTube channel. If you then show all and go to page 2 you can click on the Disturbed version of Land of Confusion. Now this is a video posted by the copyright holder through a distribution channel of their choice and yet for some loopy reason we can't link to it??? Please tell us how this makes any degree of sense.

Again nothing POV here by any reasonably interpretation and since the linked video is published by the copyright holder (Disturbed) through an official channel of theirs it is a totally valid reference and that includes the date.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Weird or not, it's true. It's all about references. You need a reference to state a description of something, or else it can be challenged. In this case, I am challenging it. Personally, I am not an editor of Genesis articles, so the section on their music video is irrelevant to me (it's a video I haven't even seen). But what I'm trying to say here (and you're helping me prove it, by and by) is that people interpret things differently, and when they do on Wikipedia, they do not edit war over it, either they get references, or get a consensus. Thus far you are being purely antagonistic, proposing an edit war with me by reverting my edits before providing a reference to validate your POV, or reaching a consensus with me. Also, YouTube link or not, it doesn't matter. The reliable source policy clearly states that reliable sources are exclusively third-party sources (Disturbed's website is first-party, meaning self-published, making it unreliable according to the policy) with a generally reliable publication process and editing team (which both YouTube and Disturbed's website lack. Seriously, who gets the album name wrong in an announcement on an official site?). So, while your proof might be valid in all practicality, it is not valid here. It is original research here, as YouTube is not a third-party, published source with a reliable fact-checking team and publication process. --The Guy _complain ^edits 06:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Dude527. but that it untrue. You stated "wiki guideline states that under NO circumstance is YouTube a valid reference" in your previous edit--a statement easily demonstrated as UNTRUE: "Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently - see Restrictions on Linking)." (WP:YOUTUBE). The restrictions are 1) it cannot violate copyright (which has already been proven it doesn't) and 2) it not a blacklisted site (which per WP:YOUTUBE Youtube is NOT.)

Furthermore there is NO policy about "reliable sources are exclusively third-party sources". In fact, the actual statement at Wikipedia:SOURCES is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; should is not must. Later on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources it is stated that "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations." and "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Looking around I found that NME's website has a reference to the video so that knocks out point 7 (the reference must appear in a third party reference) and the other 6 points were already fulfilled.

To keep this stuff out, Dude527, you have cited NONEXISTENT Wiki policies giving the impression you are in reality POV pushing. I mean when you make statements about Wiki policies that can easily be proven to be false what else can we think?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice the YouTube policy you cited is about linking external links, not about using YouTube as a reference, therefore it is moot. That doesn't matter, anyways. I propose this; I'll re-write it again, and tweak it until we can reach a consensus.

"The video starts out with the The Guy, the band's mascot, falling to earth and then the video shifts to tanks sporting a sideways dollar sign in a circle of white in a field of red (Make up your mind, is it in a circle of white, or a field of red? Or is the circle of white in the field of red? In that case, it should be written; "sideways dollar sign in a circle of white, which is contained in a field of red", although I still absolutely disagree with describing its appearance without a reference), followed soldiers marching, all belonging to different countries. Then, the leaders of different countries (just to minimize the description) are shown sitting at a table, fiercely debating. Then full scale violence is displayed as cities around the world are bombed and the soldiers shoot people down in the streets. Eventually The Guy confronts the soldiers and rallies the rebels into a revolt. (The comment that was here before; "and flags of the nations of the world are shown, with the final flag being the sidewise black dollar sign", has nothing to do with the events of the video, it bears no significance) The Guy then leads the survivors to the building (can we really confirm this is the United Nations building?) where they attack the representatives and finally a businessman, whom when destroyed by The Guy, explodes into dollar bills, implying that he was the embodiment of greed."

All I want to do is reach a consensus, because thus far, whether you agree or not, this description does contain some POV. Let me know if you agree with the above description. --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

These are accurate descriptions of events in the video. Here is the original description with timestamps from the video itself.

The video starts out with the "The Guy", (the band's mascot, whom can be seen on the cover of the albums Ten Thousand Fists and Indestructible) falling to earth like a meteor and then shifts to black military hardware sporting a sidewise black dollar sign ($) in a circle of white in a field of red (is very easy to mistake the symbol for that of Nazi Germany in its first appearance as it flashes across the screen so fast) (The field of red with circle of white flag with black symbol in that of Nazi Germany is iconic-unless you have been in a cave all your life. In fact two variants have been used by Vandal Savage of DC fame--once in the comics and once in the JL animated series. As for the sentence it is blatantly clear--the dollar $ is within the white circle that in turn is within the field of red. The dog in the house in the city is another example--simple progression from smallest to largest.) followed by legions of soldiers all dressed in black uniforms reminiscent of the German SS (again a nearly iconic style) wearing Darth Vader like masks (I notice that you did NOT get rid of this your rewrite. Couldn't get a better description?) with only their shoulder patches showing they actually belong to different countries. Later on the leaders of the United States, Russia (using their new white, blue, and red flag) (this is a clarify because "Russia" has been used interchangeably with USSR for nearly 50 years; there are even history books that say Stalin was the premier of Russia rather than the USSR. I don't like it much either but there is enough cultural confusion between Ruissa-USSR that I felt it was needed; less someone watching the video for the first time was expecting the old USSR flag.), France Japan, and United Kingdom are shown sitting at a table with the same sidewise black dollar sign ($) on it. (This can quite clearly be seen at 0:45) The video then shifts into full scale violence as the black military hardware bombs cities around the world and the black uniformed troops (whose patches have been replaced with the same symbol as on the military hardware) (again clearly seen in 1:50-1:50) shoot people down in the streets. Eventually The Guy confronts the solders and stirs the survivors to fight them. During the guitar solo the flags of the nations of the world are shown with the final flag being the sidewise black dollar sign ($) in a circle of white in a field of red (have no idea what this represents but it is in the video at 2:44-2:47). Eventually The Guy leads the survivors to the United Nations building (It is so well drawn at 3:12 that for a moment I thought it was a live picture until ! spotted the ($) flag at the end of the row--then again it could be a digitally manipulated image but making a judgment call on it being drawing or altered live picture would be POV. Here again the UN building is nearly iconic. I mean just how many tall rectangular buildings with the flags of the nations of the world in front of it can you name?) where they attack the representatives and finally the incredibly oversized and fat businessman with green teeth and eyes who when destroyed explodes into dollar bills implying that he was the embodiment of greed.

Every description point can be backed by the video itself and a totally reasonable understanding of culture iconics and the Etic/Emic paradigm (a key point in Anthropology) Sure you could make the "Man form Mars" argument but we aren't writing for the Man on Mars are we?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On an additional note I found that MTV has the Disturbed as well as the Genius version and put that in in the exact same manner as the already existing external Genius links With a third party external link in place the self published youtube version is now totally valid (as a REFERENCE) per Wikipedia:SOURCES, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:YOUTUBE. So there is no longer any justification for Dude527, TheIntersect, or anyone else for keeping either link out of the page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Alright, whatever. I don't feel like getting into an edit war, so I'm just going to let this slip toward WP:OWN. Screw consensuses, I guess, we must comply with solely you. --The Guy _complain ^edits 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That's all your opinion, though. In your opinion, the soldiers resembling soldiers from Nazi Germany is iconic. You don't have a reference to back it up, and I'm still not convinced that YouTube is a valid reference, having asked an administrator, who said it's not, even in this case. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source backs up your description, your edits are merely original research, and thus, are not verifiable, and are inappropriate for inclusion in this article. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the reliable source policy state that Wikipedia should rely on "credible published materials with a reliable publication process?" In context, it says this; "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and reliable sources are defined literally as "credible published materials with a reliable publication process," then YouTube is certainly not a reliable source. WP:YOUTUBE is a guideline for linking YouTube externally; it has nothing to do with sourcing, and is therefore not relevant. WP:V supports this; it says Wikipedia is to rely solely on reliable sources. YouTube is not a reliable source, and the current description of the video contains editor interpretation, which is generally accepted as original research. The policies do not supply that we can use YouTube as a reference, therefore your summary is no longer valid, and I will be replacing it now, with one free of user interpretation. --The Guy _complain ^edits 02:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude527, you are assuming that YouTube is the publisher--it isn't. Disturbed is the publisher and YouTube is the media through which they published their video and the video is also available through MTV so there is your 'independent third party publisher'. Nevermind that your description is even more flawed than mine:

The video initially depicts The Guy, Disturbed's mascot, falling to earth. (oh he is falling like a limp doll? That is what you are implying) It then displays military forces bombing various locations (why leave out facts the military hardware are black or the symbol on them?), followed by legions of soldiers from different countries (This implies they are dressed in the uniforms of other countries rather than the same uniform) The video then shows The Guy, escaping bondage from chains, as the military forces continue to assault cities. Then the video depicts The Guy wandering city streets as they are being bombed and as soldiers are killing people. Later on, the leaders of different countries of the world are shown fiercely debating. Eventually, The Guy confronts soldiers and stirs rebels to revolt, killing the soldiers (we see the survivors beating the crap out of the soldiers but no evidence any soldiers die) as The Guy leads more rebels to a building where they overthrow the representatives and finally a businessman whom, when destroyed by The Guy, explodes into dollar bills, which fall to earth as the rebels, and eventually, The Guy, raise their fists in unity.

While we are on it I should point that you have left the Genesis description untouched even though there is not one reference for any the things that are even more POV than what my description for Disturbed is:

The video opens with a caricatured Ronald Reagan (voiced by Chris Barrie), Nancy Reagan, and a chimpanzee (parodying Reagan's film Bedtime for Bonzo), going to bed at 16:30 (4:30 pm). Reagan, holding a teddy bear, goes to sleep and begins to have a nightmare, which sets the premise for the entire video. The video intermittently features a line of stomping feet, illustrating an army marching through a swamp, and they pick up heads of Cold War-era political figures in the swamp along the way (an allusion to Motel Hell).

Caricatured versions of the band members are shown playing instruments on stage during a concert: Tony Banks on an array of synthesizers (as well as a cash register), Mike Rutherford on a four-necked guitar (parodying Rutherford's dual role as the band's guitar and bass-player), and two Phil Collins puppets: one on the drums, and one singing.

During the second verse, the video features various world leaders giving speeches on large video screens in front of mass crowds; the video shows Mussolini, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mikhail Gorbachev and his aides (appearing like Frank Sinatra's 'rat pack'), and Muammar al-Gaddafi. Meanwhile, Reagan is shown putting on a Superman suit, fumbling along the way, while Collins sings,

Oh Superman where are you now When everything's gone wrong somehow The men of steel, the men of power Are losing control by the hour.

Meanwhile, the "real world" Reagan is shown drowning in his own sweat (at one point, a rubber duck floats by).

During the bridge, the Superman-costumed Reagan and a Monoclonius-type dinosaur (with punk jewelry) watch a television showing various clips (apparently from the Spitting Image show itself), including Johnny Carson, Leonard Nimoy as Mr Spock, and Bob Hope. This seques into a sequence apparently set in prehistoric times, where the Monoclonius-type and a Theropod-type dinosaur (wearing a bow-tie) meet up with Ron and Nancy Reagan and a rather outlandish mammal eats an egg and reads a newspaper. At the end of this part, the ape from the prologue is shown throwing a bone in the air (an allusion to 2001: A Space Odyssey).

As the bone lands at the beginning of the final verse (on top of the Rolling Stones), it turns into a telephone that Collins uses to inform the person on the other end that he "won't be coming home tonight, my generation will put it right" (which is when a caricature of a 1980s Pete Townshend is seen playing a chord on guitar and giving thumbs up for putative mentioning of his own song, My generation). Reagan is then shown riding the Monoclonius through the streets while wearing a cowboy hat and wardrobe (a reference to Reagan's down-home public persona and ranch). As the video nears its climax, there are periodic scenes of a large group of spoofed celebrity puppets, including Tina Turner, Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Hulk Hogan singing along to the chorus of the song, in a spoof of the charity driven song "We Are the World".

At the end of the video, Reagan awakens from his dream, and surfaces from the sweat surrounding him; Nancy at this point is wearing a snorkel. After taking a drink (missing his mouth and, indeed, his face), he fumbles for a button next to his bed. He intends to push the one labeled "Nurse", but instead presses the one titled "Nuke", setting off a mushroom cloud. Reagan then replies "Man, that's one heck of a nurse!" Nancy whacks him over the head with her snorkel. (This is somewhat reminiscient of the opening of Far Out Space Nuts when a "Launch" button is pressed, thinking it was labelled "Lunch".)

How can you be so critical of my description when my the very standards you present the Genesis description has even more problems and no references to back up anything it says? How can anyone change my description based on POV claim and yet leave the by your own standards clearly POV out the wazoo Genesis description intact without looking like a hypocrite? I should mention that the Genesis description actually has the sequence out of order Collins catches the phone at 3:38 but the bone doesn't fall on a group until 3:51 (It's on so briefly that I doubt even a hard cord Stones fan would recognize the puppets used). The idea that Superman who can only been around since 1938 is more iconic than the flag of the Nazis which has been around since 1920 (it became the flag of German in 1933) is IMHO borderline insane; especially when people like Fireside (1971) - in a Harvard University Press book and Weinberg (1973) in Political Science Quarterly say otherwise (two independent scholars so it is not as you claim "my option"). In fact, the swastika have been so connected with the Nazis that insane efforts are used to suppress the symbol; the $600,000 the US Navy is spending to change their building being the latest in a long series of idiocy. Heller (2000) Swastika: Symbol Beyond Redemption? goes into greater detail, and in 2007 we had Hindus opposing EU swastika ban. I'm restoring my description with reverences to BOTH youtube and MTV as it is in keeping the existing Genesis description. At least mine unlike the Genesis description has a reference. Your arguments are invalid as even in the 1970s scholars recognized the red field, white circle, and black symbol of Nazis as iconic.

MTV has an article that confirms much of what I said: "The entire clip will be "a big view of the corporate world and how it all ties into just one big beast for me," said McFarlane. "That the world is run by one giant thing, which is driven by greed and lust."

The video's action will unfold across different continents, with legions of threatening soldiers wearing armbands bearing what appear to be dollar signs descending on the civilian masses. Like the original "Land of Confusion," McFarlane's will also feature a bunch of world leaders: President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The video's villain, he said, will be a bloated fat cat who represents corporate greed." Can't get more definitive than quote from McFarlane himself in the online version of MTV magazine though it was during the concept phase of the video. Things change from concept to final product, but I have not had any luck finding anything about the video after it was produced. Unless someone can find something later this is about as definitive as we are going to get and should end the nonsense we have had regarding the description of the Disturbed video. Oh, I found a still picture to the solder design and put that in the description as a reference as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will point out to you that I am not implying that the video itself is not a reliable source. I am implying YouTube isn't. Regardless of whether or not the video is on there, YouTube itself does not fit those standards, and you are citing a reference from YouTube, not from the music video. I would also like to point out that I am not an editor of Genesis articles, once again. I have not seen their version of the video, and I have scarcely heard the song, so I do not edit it. That is not the issue, though. The issue is that the summary still contains user interpretation. Examples: "all dressed in black SS-like uniforms wearing Darth Vader-like masks," "same sideways black American dollar sign." Just these two examples, among a few others in that description, are interpretations by you. I see you cited a reference for the SS-like appearance, but it's nothing more than a picture, which you interpreted as resembling this. That is your interpretation. And the sideways black American dollar sign crap? You're the once saying that is what it resembles, without a valid reference. Citing the sites that this video is on does not suffice for a reference. Citing a picture which you yourself interpret is a violation of the WP:OR policy. I'm reverting this crap, and I'm going to get some second opinions who will be unbiased in here. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to you, I touched my description up a little bit, as per the boldfaced text above my previous comment. I will state again that just because I refuse to edit the Genesis video (which I have not even watched), that is not a reason to revert me on the Disturbed one. Also, if you want to add some notes in a paragraph under the description of the video with MacFarlane's quotes explaining the interpretation a little bit more in-depth, go for it. I will if you don't get to it in the next 5 hours (I'm at school and have to get off soon, or I would do this right now). Anyways, cheers guy. EDIT: Also, just as a side note, I do recognize the significance of the Swastika. What I do not recognize is it's significance in this video. It never appears explicitly, and even if it did, you'd need a reference to state that is what it is. Just because scholars recognize the significance does not mean that they watched this music video and said, "Hey, that's a Swastika!" and decided to write about it. They didn't, so your points are moot. The Swastika might be important, but it is not important to this video, as it never explicitly appears, and one would have to use their own interpretation to state that anything in the video resembles it. I think you're getting this all mixed up, too. Just because you have a reference for the description (linking to the video itself, which, I might add, is not a valid reference), does not mean you are free to add your own interpretation in there. That is what you are doing; this is your own interpretation. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to point out a few things here. Firstly, no we cannot provide a link to youtube as the source. WP:YOUTUBE forbids it as a copyright violation. However, we can use the music video itself as a source, see [1], for non-controversial interpretations the music video itself is the source. This basically means that we must follow common sense and avoid dickishism at all cost.

Now, it seems that there is an argument over every sentence and I'm certainly not going to interpret this video for you. I will give you some guidelines however.

• If the music video shows that the eyes are green you can say the eye's are green. How color blind people view the video is irrelevant. The eyes were made green for some symbolic reason, while color blind people cannot see this it is are duty to inform them. Color blind people still understand the symbolism behind the color green. They need to know the truth and we are here to give them the truth.
• The business man being "oversized" is not controversial, while it's probably not the best wording, it's quite acceptable.
• A statement like "the mask resembling darth vadar" crosses the line into POV and should be avoided.
• Saying that there was nazi imagery probably crosses into a POV, however a more general term would be perfectly acceptable.

As you can see, it's about taking each issue on a case by case bases. — Realist² 21:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point is the user interpretation is heavy without reference. If proper references for these interpretations (really the only thing I take issue with) were provided, I would take no issue. But proper references are not provided, making it user interpretation. That's all I take issue with. I will state again; if proper references were provided for these interpretations (and no, the video itself is not a proper reference for that. The video is a proper reference for events, but not interpretations), I would take no issue. But then for the case-by-case, we'd also have to ask the significance of each feature, too. It's not necessary to state his eyes are green, for example. But that's not what the issue is. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with most of your concerns entirely, I think your taking the "interpretation" aspect a little too far, while your counterpart is being too relaxed. What you need is consensus upon the interpretation, you can either do this with third party sources or for non controversial issues you can use the video itself. My advise would be to talk in generalities, rather than pushing a specific interpretation, it would be easier to gain consensus. However it's perfectly acceptable to use the video itself for issues such as eye color and how large a person is. — Realist² 23:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand this; it's my idea as well. I do not like the specific "soldiers resemble Darth Vader" without a reference, but I would not mind something more vague (SS-soldiers are still too specific). I understand that things like the eye color can be posted (I realized that shortly after the debate about that), but that's entirely not what this is about for me, now. What this is about is simple; no editors should try to interpret the music video themselves, without a valid cited source for those interpretations. I can't write at the end of the description, "this music video is about the greed of corporate earth, and how money drives everything." I couldn't do that, that's POV. What I could do is describe the events of the video (although not in such detail as to define different colors of things, unless a reference says they're significant), not adding anything about how these events are to be interpreted, not adding my own opinions of "this resembles this, which is iconic to this event in the 1940s." Can't do it without a reference, that's POV. Now, this all being said, the music video itself is not a valid reference for these interpretations; the video shows you the events, but you're still interpreting what they mean. Also realize that there is a difference between actually citing a text interview from a reliable source specifying the information, and coming into the talk page and saying "well, I remember this MTV article that said this is how he interpreted it." No, no, no. If no one will cite it, it will not remain if it is original research. Simple as that. Sorry about the rant :) --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My fellow editors, have you even been paying attention? I have pointed out several times that the youtube link I have used is though Distubed's official Youtube channel so how in the name of sanity can it be a "copyright violation" when it was posted by the copyright holder??? That is why I did that idiotic how to edit that TheIntersect objected to so strongly to; that was to show the youtube reference link was NOT a copyright violation but rather posted by the legitimate copyright holder. The restrictions on lining directly states "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright." I took due care to make sure the link was by the official copyright holder (the band Disturbed) and have demonstrated this several times.

I should mention that there were two OTHER references: one to MTV's video and the other to their online magazine (Harris, Chris (March 15 2006). "Todd McFarlane To Make Genesis' 'Confusion' Clip Even More Disturbed", MTV. Retrieved on 15 December 2008) but Dude527 seems to have been so quick to engage his little revert war that he didn't even brother to note those (he certainly didn't comment on them). In fact, I quoted several passages from the Harris article even talking the trouble to bold them and still we have Dude527 doing his reverts with total disregard for the third party references he keeps asking for. Todd McFarlane himself is quoted "The video's villain, he said, will be a bloated fat cat who represents corporate greed." in the Harris article and yet we are told by Dude527 that this is a POV edit??? What kind of tin foil hat, Chariots of the Gods, Bermuda Triangle insanity is this??? If you think this is bad nationmaster uses an older version of this article which is even more POV that I have been.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And I don't know how many times I have to say this; when you use YouTube as a reference, you are using YouTube as a reference (You should also note that the copyright holder is not the band Disturbed, but the company Warner), not the video directly like you should. Same with the MTV link. Though MTV is not an invalid reference (I still don't know about videos on MTV), YouTube is. Look, man. Here's my compromise, I'd be willing to make this consensus; use my video summary describing the events of the video without any user interpretation, and then use Chris Harris' quotes and that reference to describe the aim of the music video below or above said summary of events. Also, I will say it again (and I will keep removing it, too); this is not a valid reference. It is a photo, but you put it after a sentence in which you make two all-too specific comparisons. That is user interpretation, that is against policy. You may have a reference, but you are still making the interpretation as to what this character looks like. I will await your reply. Just a minor comment, too; has anybody even noticed that WP:YOUTUBE refers to externally linking YouTube, not using it as a source? It is therefore invalid. --The Guy _complain ^edits 16:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree you cannot use a link to a photo still as a point of interpretation. Secondly, even if you can use a youtube link as a source, you cannot use the video to give a specific interpretation if there is no consensus upon that interpretation (clearly we have a disagreement here) so it's best that we stop using video links to YOUTUBE/ MTV / photo still's for the interpretation. Unless you are both prepared to only use the video for general plot details or undisputed, none controversial interpretations I seriously suggest you drop it. Use third party written text only if you cannot reach an amicable consensus using the primary source. I repeat again, video links to youtube, MTV or photo stills cannot be used to legitimize, detailed, specific interpretations. — Realist² 17:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet Dude527 uses "American" something just as POV as SS-like and Darth Vader-like. I've reverted and removed the SS-like and Darth Vader-like reference that is causing Dude527 such a fit and just references the picture at MTV magazine. Similarly the comment denoting who the leaders are in the video (which Dude527 also happily snipped along with its third party reference) has been restored. I should mention the use of a Youtube video when it can reasonable shown to have been posted by the copyright holder is being kicked around on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with one editor stating "there is nothing at all wrong with using the video on Youtube as the source and giving a convenience link" (NE2) and another stating "It is obvious by the care in which you have made your case and followed the trail of ownership, that this specific use of Youtube by you is acceptable and does not conflict with WP:YOUTUBE. Schmidt. Oh before you dismiss either of these you better look at Schmidt's page; he is considered VERY credible in the wiki community.

As I have shows both here and there the video can be reasonably shown to be posted by Disturbed and therefore valid under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources even if they used Youtube as their distribution channel. Stop claiming you can never use youtube as a reference because it is NOT true.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way the "However, where Genesis used the "Spitting Image" caricature puppets to parody the Cold War and its leaders, McFarlane uses dark imagery and much more allegoric attacks to get his point across." statement appears to be a plagiarism of [this blog] that is quoting from some other source (they don't give any reference to where the quote is coming from). Worse, the youtube video that the blog linked to has been removed for violation. Never mind the statement is demonstrative WRONG unless someone can show me how Mussolini is related to the Cold War or was one of its leaders. Sheesh, how tin foil hatted can you get??--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I favor my latest edit. It ultimately serves both mine and my counterpart's purposes. It's my summary of the video, followed by quotes from the provided citation that explain the director's interpretation of the video. It gives a summary of the events of the video, then interprets it, without using any user-interpretation, yet using all the resources my counterpart provided in citations. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. You said the $ is American dollar a position as POV as SS-like and Darth Vader-like. You removed the third party reference to who the leaders were intended to be, and other nonsense. By the way I finally found the third party reference you kept harping on regarding the Nazi and UN reference and THAT is going in. Now that I have Khouri, Andy (July 22nd, 2006). "CCI, Day 3: McFarlane Vs Kirkman?", Comic Book Resources as a reference you can't claim POV any more regarding these points.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of that reference, that looks very much like a summary of the video. I suggest we use that instead of harping on about this. Of course, you'll probably ignore this proposal as you have my past ones, also ignoring your own suggestion of "Reword rather than delete." Anyways, I removed no third-party reference as to who the leaders were intended to be, I simply removed that useless, trivial fact. I mean, prove that it's significant to the video; it isn't. Also, I would appreciate a little bit more respect; don't call my edits "nonsense" please. Unless you were referring to me removing nonsense, in which case, those were your edits, and I don't mind that. I would also appreciate if you'd stop trying to own the article. You should clearly see that I disagree with this, and you should be trying to make a consensus with me that we both agree on, but instead you don't acknowledge my attempts to appease us both, you simply revert to the edit which you know I don't approve of. That's drifting toward WP:OWN. Now, I'm going to remove some aspects of your summary that are not significant to the video, such as who the leaders of the countries are. Those things are not significant. Please at least attempt to work with me instead of stubbornly sticking with your own points solely; consider other editors. --The Guy _complain ^edits 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, just a few minor notes after reading many of your edit summaries: you're being a dick. There's no need to keep any of your edit summaries focused on me, no need to mention me. I would like to know if you even know what vandalizing an article is, my friend. It's a very fine line, and accusing me of vandalizing an article is no small claim. Let me fill you in on something; it is impossible for one's edits in good faith to be considered vandalism. I would recommend you study up a little bit more before disrespecting me like this. Also, your comment that says "This is more neutral and better representive of what the video shows." is pure POV anyways. It's your opinion that it's more neutral and better, not mine, just more evidence that you show no respect for me or my opinion. --The Guy _complain ^edits 17:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

There, I have taken out a lot of unnecessary fluff, but it still depicts basically the same summary. --The Guy _complain ^edits 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude527, you have cited nonexistant Wiki polices to keep this out ("wiki guideline states that under NO circumstance is YouTube a valid reference!", "The reliable source policy clearly states that reliable sources are exclusively third-party sources.") Even editor Realist stated "If the music video shows that the eyes are green you can say the eye's are green." as a counter to your color-blind example. The "Black-clad soldiers reminiscent of Hitler's SS" is an EXACT QUOTE FROM A THIRD PARTY SOURCE so it doesn't matter if you think "the colors of the soldiers' uniforms are insignificant. so is helmets" its an EXACT QUOTE FROM A THIRD PARTY SOURCE. Besides in NONE of my edits have I EVER mentioned helmets nor did I EVER say "soldiers resemble Darth Vader"; at worst I said "black uniforms reminiscent of the German SS, and wearing Darth Vader like masks". If anything you are making it look like you are Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system with your edits. I just noticed you did it again. Tell me just what is wrong with a EXACT QUOTE FROM A THIRD PARTY SOURCE??--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't cite non-existent policies, my friend, I just interpreted them wrong. But anyways, how long ago was that? But what significance does color bear? You have failed to provide me with that. Also, there is nothing wrong with a third-party quote, I didn't remove it. I simply elaborated upon it by saying "Adolf Hitler" instead of "Hitler," and "Schutzstaffel" over "SS." That's to elaborate further, to identify what we are referring to, that is not undermining you, nor the reference. Also, you haven't mentioned helmets? In your latest edit, it stated that they bore helmets. I just want to know what significance that has, too. Realize that we do not need to say every detail to everything that appears. Keep WP:PLOT in mind; it recommends 300-500 characters long for a book or film plot. This is a four minute music video, we do not need to be super-elaborate with it, lest we confuse some readers. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case color does have relevance. I should mention I have gone back to the exact quote as the SS did have other colors: a mud colored shirt, a white one (Regierungsrat Strautmann is shown in one--while a blog the picture has a reference so it is usable. I would prefer something better than this though), and a camouflage version.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, I get the significance. In this case, though, we don't really need to have the exact quote in the summary, we should just take the information and put it in the article. To me, having the actual quote there (in quotation marks) kind of breaks up the paragraph. We have the reference, we have the information, that's all we need. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see how having a capital "B" in the middle of it would tend to mess up the sentence. I double checked and my 16:29, December 18, 2008 edit had NOTHING about helmets and that was the one you made the comment regarding helmets on; if it did happen it must have been way earlier.

On the leaders, I thought mentioning the leaders was a way to show McFarlane was trying to be as contemporary with his video as Genesis had been with theirs without inserting POV into the description. Given the time they are on screen compared to Reagan in the Genesis version I guess referring them could be called "fluff".

I am of two minds regarding the "use ref name so that we can cite it multiple times instead of having to do it manually". On one hand it does make multiple time references easier but on the other if some editor removes that key first reference you get Cite errors all over the place. That is more editor style than anything else so no problem.

Finally I'm kind of sad to see the independent corporate greed reference lost but the lead addresses that. I just wish it was in the description itself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note does this mean we need to reduce the Genesis description per WP:PLOT? I put it into MSword and found it runs 621 words long (quotes of lyrics included). In particular the "Appropriate plot summaries describe the major events depicted in the fictional work, but do not describe individual scenes in detail or paraphrase dialog." clause seems to have been stamped on ruthlessly in the Genesis description as it is practically a scene by scene description of the video.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If somebody does remove a reference, we will only have cite errors briefly, as Wikipedia has bots for identifying and fixing what they call "abandoned" reference names. They take the deleted reference and re-apply it to the rest of the remaining one. Handy little things, they are. --The Guy _complain ^edits 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't see your comment about the Genesis video when I originally commented. I believe it should be reduced from that length, most definitely. Also, it should be noted that quotation of lyrics on Wikipedia can be considered a copyright violation (I absolutely forgot where I read this, I will find the guideline ASAP). --The Guy _complain ^edits 21:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like WP:PLOT has most of the relevant information: "Some editors have also expressed concerns that plot summaries which describe individual scenes in detail or paraphrase dialog are a problem in terms of copyright and may constitute non-free content, which must be minimized to ensure Wikipedia's mission of creating a free-content encyclopedia. In a 1993 fair use court case in America, Twin Peaks Productions vs. Publications International, it was ruled that a book about a television series constituted a copyright infringement because, among other things, it contained a detailed account of "every intricate plot twist and element of character development" found in the original. According to the ruling, it is okay if a plot is "briefly described for purposes of adding significant criticism or comment about the author's plotting technique", but it may constitute a copyright violation if it "goes far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism" and instead simply "recount[s] for its readers precisely the plot details" of a fictional work." Hope this helps as I have no idea on how to fix that thing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

G8? Ok, some of them, but not all of them

Reading this, it suggests that it's the G8 that is shown, however in the flags in front of the building are "Capitalist Nazis" (for lack of a better word), Turkey, Canada, Russia, the USA, France, the UK, and Japan. Since Turkey, but rather Italy is part of the G8, not Italy, how does that work? Also, Germany's flag is not represented, unless you want to count the "Capitalist Nazi" flag, which was clearly modeled after the Nazi Germany flag. The flags rather seem to mostly be the G8, except that the colors have been "washed" to ensure that all the flags only have Red, White, and Blue on them (ok, a touch of black from the "Capitalist Nazi" flag). It's likely that Italy was "hijacked" in this case because their flag is red and white, rather than the Italian flag of green, white and red. The green would likely throw off the color scheme they were looking for, as well the prominent black and yellow of the modern German flag would throw off the color scheme. (The black from the "Capitalist Nazi" flag is fairly subdued by the rest of the colors matching the rest of the flags.) I think the intentions of matching the colors to Red White and Blue is to make the flags hit more to home for an American viewer. Perhaps? Anyways, that's OR... Still, how can it simply be called a group representing the G8, when Germany and Italy are not portrayed, and Turkey is portrayed, and the most prominent flag particularly emblazoned all over the fat money man is a satire of the Nazi Germany flag? Another reason just popped into my head for ditching the Italian flag, with the Italian flag out of the way, when the $ of the "Capitalist Nazi" flag momentarily glows green, the effect would be lost or diminished by the earlier appearance of green in the video. Looking at the video, there are only a few places where green shows up, helping this theory. Also noticed in this watch through, when it flies past the flags, Turkey is still there, but so is China, also displayed is somewhere in China ruined. Only 5 countries are shown in the "war room", the US, the UK, France, Russia, and Japan. Thinking about it, all the countries shown had some involvement with the international fiasco which was the US trying to find support for the invasion of Iraq, with the UK and Japan on board, but France, Russia, and China against. Turkey was also a prominent player in the Iraq war when the revoked fly-through rights to the US during the Iraq invasion. Now, before you say "Germany was opposed to going into Iraq also", all the countries mentioned had a monetary reason to invade. France, Russia and China stood to make a lot of money if/when embargoes were lifted, and the US, UK and Japan standing without much of a reason to go in. Turkey was mostly afraid of the Kurds getting independence, and provoking their own Kurdish population to revolt. Germany on the other hand pretty much was like "Hey, we tried invading other countries... we wouldn't recommend it." Just some random thoughts.

Summary: G8 doesn't really work because Italy and Germany aren't there, while Turkey and China show up as minor players. --Puellanivis (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the title a reference to something?

It occurred to me that the title might be a reference to something else besides the song's narrative. Maybe something biblical? Paradoctor (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Bizarre" puppets

Are they really that "bizarre" to today's generation? They are caricatures, meant to be comedic exaggerations of the real people they are based on. I think "bizarre" has a negative pejorative that's not really in keeping with (the alleged) wiki neutrality. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Willy Brandt

At 0:34 in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU9lv_WqK6k): Is that the older Willy Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.79.215.74 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It certainly looks like Willy Brandt to me. Sansmalrst (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Land of Confusion have a pop rock melody, like many others Genesis' songs of the 1980s (example: "That's All").

Eleanor Goodman of Louder says: "The 80s pop hit gets a bouncy nu-metal update, punctuated neatly by David’s distinctive monkey noises."

The source only says "pop", but it's obvious that it's a rock song too.

References

Madonna Puppet

The Madonna puppet has a belly button with lips. Is that worth mentioning in the article on this page? Cbsteffen (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Will Smith

The article mentions a caricature of Will Smith in the video. Is that really him? It’s not impossible, but seems highly unlikely (he was still a teenager at the time, and his rap group’s first single—-which was only a minor hit—-was released in the same year as “Land Of Confusion”). Smith really didn’t hit it big in the mainstream until 1988 or so. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:58A8 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

hi my name is Crystal Ann Henderson Help I understand all of my careers at hand and these neverending voices with me has made me stall my time I might be needing help with getting my kids back to me I don't know yet but I have a still stumbling story to tell of who I am and how I came about but first thing first Help me. 24.234.102.249 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)