Jump to content

Talk:System of a Down/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Edit War

Were in the beginning stages of an edit war, perhaps until there a consensus we should stay with the old one?--SKATER Speak. 14:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm staying away from editing it and keeping to the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I agree. We could leave it till we get to somewhere in the RfC.Solinothe Wolf 07:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I requested Semi-Protection for this page to help slow down the genre change without Consensus.--SKATER Speak. 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity parental guidance sticker

In the article it states that "[Toxicity] is the only album of System of a Down that doesn't have a parental guidance sticker on the cover." Frankly, this is not true. However, I bought this album at HMV, and because it was an external sticker (not printed on the booklet) stuck on the plastic wrap, I figured it is possible that it is a store-specific detail. That is the reason that I did not change it. Can anyone confirm that it does have a parental guidance sticker? By the way, none of the SOAD albums have a parental guidance sticker printed on the booklet. --Creepydude (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard the before, I think in rock band and a few other sources i can't remember. I'll source hunt in abit.--SKATER Speak. 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think Toxicity is the only SOAD album that doesn't have a PA version what so ever. I have Toxcity, Steal This Album!, and Hypnotize (sadly I haven't had the money to buy any more albums). My findings, though all were bought used):
Toxicity had no sticker, and still was in original packaging.
Hypnotize wasn't in original shrinkwrap, but had the sticker on the shrinkwrap of the new albums.
Steal This Album! had it on the case, under the shrinkwrap. This is the way that the manufacturer put it, as everything was original (it still had the sicker at the top that said the album name and artist). My version is also the John Dolmayan version so it may different for other versions.
While this is obvious, blatant WP:OR, it may help you, it may not. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That must be an American thing. In any non-American-owned store in Canada (few and far between), there are no warnings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nu metal

Shouldn't it be in the infobox? It wouldn't be too hard to find a source that backs this up. Rockgenre (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Genre Sources

List em here:


Alt Metal, Hard Rock, Nu Metal, Prog Metal - http://www.systemofadown.us

Alt Metal, Nu Metal - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifuxqqjldfe~T1 (Winamp.com mirrors the allmusic review)

Metal, Prog Rock - http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507049/20050805/system_of_a_down.jhtml

Metal, Prog Rock - Jim Dero (Chicago sun-times music critic) http://www.jimdero.com/News2005/SpinMay8.htm

Metal, Prog Rock, Hard Rock - http://rock.about.com/od/systemofadown/p/soad.htm



To be honest, I believe the 4 that SOAD.us lists are a good generalization of what we will find, as they explicitly state that the press has coined those labels. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If nobody further is going to comment, I'm going to change it to Alt/Nu/Prog Metal and Experimental. I've provided 4 sources with progressive metal listed. Nu metal seems to be an insistence of many editors, and the other two are currently on the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I accept that, you can add the one from Winamp I posted to the list if you want.--SKATER Speak. 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a mirror of allmusic's review from what I can tell. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, its been requested that those sources be listed here. At this point I'm going to put all 4 in, as they are all well sourced. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not your job to act against consensus. "Nu metal" is not consistently sourced, and the previous, agreed upon genre list (alternative metal, experimental) was fine. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
You had plenty of time to provide sources. You alone do not define consensus, and currently more people side with the 4 genres than side with two. Instead of just bitching and reverting, provide some friggen sources to backup your claim. The previous discussion is irrelevant. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming in on this discussion very late. I do not agree that any previous discussion is no longer valid following this latest series of posts and the ongoing edit war over a subject that should have been put to rest a long time ago. The current entries in the box DO contradict previous discussion and previous consensus. Those earlier points and agreements should have been linked inside this current discussion in order to allow all editors to see the history behind this lengthy debate. All previous discussion which resulted in a consensus is valid and relevant. Ignoring Wikipedia protocol and making shady attempts to create a new consensus is acting in bad faith. In the links given above the amateur fansite listed first should be stricken from the debate. Amateur fansites are never to be used as a source. The second one given is Allmusic. This site has been discussed more than once at the Reliable Source discussion board. After much debate the agreement was that: If editors have a consensus to allow the website to be used as a genre source then it can be allowed. However, because the site has been deemed a very weak and often inaccurate source for genres, if a genre is challenged and Allmusic is one of the sources given then its strength as a reference has been eliminated and the genre and link can be removed from the debate. To end this debate I suggest that the genres either be replaced by the all encompassing rock as has been done with many articles who's genre arguments have resulted in wasting everyone's time. Or, as has been done, add rock plus a "See [[Style and influence]] link to give readers a direct pipe to the section relevant to the content of the field. Way too much time has been thrown away over this minor topic. Its time for everyone to stop pissing in the sandbox and move to a new playground. BC Rocky (talk) 03:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While I will agree on the issue with the first two links, they are simply the ones I found on the first 2 pages of Google, and are just an example that I can expand upon. A request for comment has been active for a month. In that time, I have repeatedly asked for sources to backup the weight of genres presented in the infobox. It is not difficult to quickly grab the sources from the previous discussion and post them here, nor to provide a link to it, neither of which could be accomplished. I strongly disagree with the rock concept, as Wikipedia's purpose is to inform, not to muddle down in an attempt to appease the anonymous editors that bicker over it. The genres in the infobox should reflect any consensus amongst sources, not editors. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Floydian, there was no consensus to add "progressive metal" and "nu metal" to the Infobox. The original consensus was "rock, heavy metal, experimental". "Alternative metal, experimental" was the final consensus. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
PROVIDE SOURCES! What do you not understand, it is a simple request. If you do not provide the sources, than all 4 genres will be placed back in the infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources were provided. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

I have to support part of the original consensus that nu metal and prog metal are not req'd in the infobox of this page. I would stretch it one further to say that "experimental" anything is not accurate either. Want true experimental music... listen to The Residents. The debate over this... which has been around for a long time.... long before you 2 ever came along. The best way to avoid wasting time on this foolish argument is to put 'rock' and 'heavy metal' in the box and then just move on. Rock is never wrong in any genre field related to any band or artist who plays a sub-genre of the style. And heavy metal covers off all the 'metal' sub-sub-genres of rock and makes everyone over at wp:metal all happy because they get "their" word in there. Leave nu metal out. No matter what pea-brained music critic tried to label them that... I have no argument against it... it's addition to the box just results in pissing off fans of the band who don't want to admit that the band were lumped into that category even though their musical style does not resemble nu metal in any way. I fail to see where SOAD sounds anything like Queensryche or Dream Theater even in the remotest possible way. That some critic described them as progressive metal does not surprise me. Likewise it would not surprise me that that same critic wouldn't know prog metal from his own ass if someone were to ask him. Rock, heavy metal... keep it simple... and just walk away and think stringly about how gloriously numb this entire debate is and about how much time has been wasted over it. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, progressive covers a huge range of sounds, particularly those that branch off from the ordinary pop-rock formula of verse-chorus-bridge. System sounds nothing like Frank Zappa, but the two are consistently linked. Dream Theatre sounds nothing like Ayreon, yet both are considered the resuscitators of progressive rock. Second off, I stand by my argument that all bands with just rock are muddled down by anonymous internet users. The opinions of anoymous Wikipedia editors means NOTHING. If several reliable sources categorize SOAD as prog rock, then they matter, not your opinions. Saying that it has been an argument here longer than we have been members (definitely not true in my case, as infoboxes didn't exist when I joined.) means nothing, and wasting time is exactly what most of the members on Wikipedia are doing.
I still fail to grasp why any of this is happening. The genres should reflect the sources. They currently do not. If sources are not provided (which, again, they are still not being), I will make it so that they do reflect one another. Period. WP:OR, and WP:SYN contain all the information you need to understand that the discussion is moot point over the reliable sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It is your opinion that System "sounds nothing like Frank Zappa". The reason that System of a Down and Frank Zappa are consistently linked is because, not only were they partially influenced by Zappa (along with the Beatles and Slayer), they do, in fact, sound like Frank Zappa. They don't sound exactly like Frank Zappa, but neither does Primus, Phish, George Clinton, Black Sabbath (yes, really), Clawfinger, Insane Clown Posse, or any of the millions of artists whose music was in some way impacted by Zappa's work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
By the only stated rule of the template... "aim for generality"... watered down all-encompassing genres are, in fact, what is supposed to go in the box. Referenced content can go in the article until you're blue in the face. But if the consensus is that the genre field in the infobox is to follow the rules and be all-encompassing... then that is how they will be. Rock is 100% accurate. And heavy metal is 100% accurate. And both "all-encompass" into a nice pan all the sub-genres that every editor has spun their wheels on here. In a perfect Wikipedia world the genre field would be removed from the template completely... all the lead-in sentences would say rock (for rock acts) and every article would have a cited style section. We edged close to that perfect world back in late 2007 when, for 6 glorious weeks, the genre field was gone. But a bunch of immature whining genre-warriors complained loud enough to get their favourite field back and now we are stuck with editors wasting their time edit warring over it. The only way to avoid an edit war... consensus. If the page had/has a consensus... then the debate ends. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but consensus is not permanent. Ideally we could have it say rock, and then the user can mouse over 'rock' and a list would display an alt text that lists all the sourced genres. The point still remains that I've asked for over a month for the previous discussion or its sources to be listed, and instead have gotten numerous arguments by, for the most part, one editor who refuses to allow change. I'm certain that: a)More sources are available, and in some cases better; and b)many of the editors that were involved in the past discussions are no longer present. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what we're arguing about. The generality rule is clear, and "nu metal" is inconsistently applied. The only matter at hand, it seems, is your own opinion in the matters. If you look at the reviews of each album, none of their albums are described as nu metal. So why is this an important term in describing the entirety of their work? Musically, System of a Down has nothing in common with any band described as "nu metal". The Infobox is not meant to describe everything related to the musical aspects of a band's work. The article itself is supposed to cover the band's music. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

The infobox is meant to provide a quick rundown of the subject. It's a tl;dr for an article. Nu metal I really don't care about, I only added that because a different editor replaces it on a daily basis. I want progressive rock or metal up there (which the majority of their music could be described as, but most especially the mesmerize and hypnotize albums), and I have the sources to back up my opinion with a fact. I have only asked for you to provide sources that discredit the several I have provided (or sources in general to back up experimental, as currently the sources 9) Only label the debut album as experimental, 14) don't work, and 15) are a passing mention in an article about Serj. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the old consensus is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"Rock, heavy metal, experimental". Since you asked for the inclusion of "metal", this should satisfy you. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
Progressive metal. Besides, I hardly see how you have the right to change the consensus (To an old one that has since been vetoed by the new one) yet you tell me when I make a change, which is agreed on by more editors, that I'm against consensus. You're very inconsistent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what satisfies the majority of the editors. I'm not editing against consensus, as you have chosen to do. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
Once again, if I'm not getting provided sources (Don't care about opinions really, nor the consensus made by long-gone members months ago), then I'm changing the genres to reflect the sources that are available. I'm not sitting around waiting for the bot to archive this because nobody responds. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources have been provided. You ignored them. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
No you haven't! Please copy and paste the quote of yourself providing the sources, because I certainly can't see it above anywhere. Passing mention has been provided, no links to the so called "previous consensus" have been provided, and you have made NO attempt to do as I have at the top of this section (Listing sources with the genres mentioned explicitly in those sources). You are being a mule with this and I'm not going to sit around and wait because you have decided that you are the consensus. Answering my requests with "I have and you ignored them" when you most clearly have no provided anything besides your opinion (which I really couldn't care less about) is going to make me take this to ANI. Provide sources, or I will make the changes, period. If you continue to buck, I will seek outside intervention. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
That discussion goes through about 15 different options, but falls equally upon the argument that the genres in the infobox should reflect the sources best. Its funny because looking through several diffs in there, I can see that you also advocated progressive metal (however I can also see that at times you were rather uncommunicative). Checking every source on that page, I can only add several for nu metal, and 5 or 6 that discredit nu metal. In addition, I found a source from Rolling Stone that calls them Progressive Metal. I will take a more thurough look through and list every genre from every source mentioned in archives 3 and 4. The most heavily sourced genres will go into the infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I advocated progressive metal because it was better sourced than nu metal. I don't think that SOAD is a band that can be clearly defined by terms used by random reporters who don't know what they're talking about. I think that having the infobox be less descriptive in its inclusion of genres works better. SOAD, much like Zappa, performs fusions of various genres. The generality rule applies here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
Generality isn't a rule or a guideline. Merely a choice taken by some editors who'd rather provide less information than to sit down and have the sourced genres listed. I very much agree that reporters know nothing about the music they report on more often than not, and as such I base the genres I choose on the styles and influences of the music. Zappa is very much a progressive musician too (If you actually look at progressive music, experimental (Art Rock) is one of the genres it DABs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.progarchives.com/google-search-results.asp?cx=partner-pub-0447992028883143%3Af1fmtcapyds&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=+system+of+a+down&sa=Search#852 lolwut, wharr's da soad? 216.66.139.56 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that we can all pick a site and find something thats not on it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Break

Here is the official list. Tally at the bottom

Alt Metal, Nu Metal, Metal - http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hifuxqqjldfe~T1 (Winamp.com mirrors the allmusic review)

Metal, Prog Rock - http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1507049/20050805/system_of_a_down.jhtml

Metal, Prog Rock, minus one to nu metal - Jim Dero (Chicago sun-times music critic) http://www.jimdero.com/News2005/SpinMay8.htm

Metal, Prog Rock, Hard Rock - http://rock.about.com/od/systemofadown/p/soad.htm

Experimental, metal (unspecific), minus one to nu-metal - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/08/26/pounding_out_a_blistering_attack/

Metal, mentions progressive and experimental nature ("Where the music is concerned, SAOD is adept at odd metre changes, vocal harmonies and employing dynamics in the most unbelievable manner.") - http://www.star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=/2005/6/20/music/11240422&sec=music

Heavy Metal (passing mention), Nu Metal - http://www.popmatters.com/music/reviews/m/mudvayne-lostandfound.shtml "System of a Down have completely cast off the nu-metal tag in recent years", meaning they were nu metal, but aren't in recent years, likely referring to Mesmerize and Hypnotize since the article is from 2005.

These are in addition to the sources currently on the article (except the allmusic biography, which is listed above):

  • Progressive/Art rock: 6
  • Metal (inc Nu Metal): 3
  • Alternative: 1
  • Hard Rock: 1
  • Experimental: 2


  • We've got 10 sources that list metal in some way.
  • 3 of those sources specifically claim heavy metal
  • 4 sources make at least a passing mention that System are or were nu metal (Given the short history of the band, just because they no longer were nu metal by 2005 does not mean that the other albums did not have that influence)
    • HOWEVER, 2 sources specifically disclaim nu-metal, bringing its tally to 0
  • 10 sources claim "progressive" or some derivative of it (2 of those are for Art Rock, a genre that crosses between Experimental and Progressive.
  • Only two sources specifically claims Alternative metal.
  • 6 sources claim experimental music (including the 2 Art rock sources), a seventh makes a passing mention but is not specifically labeling them by genre.

Given the sources, the genres should be Metal and Progressive music, and experimental music. Feel free to do a recount as I got a bit jumbled in doing it, but the clear weight of the sources is evident here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it another week, if nobody else responds. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Double checked the numbers there and everything seems to be in order.Though 2 people does not a consensus make...--SKATER Speak. 21:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Given that only 3 people participate? Personally I believe that sources trump editor opinion and that consensus building isn't even necessary when the numbers are so clearly weighted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
And now Ibranoff isn't even coming here to respond. But hey, you miss the boat, you're stuck on the island... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:Silence I believe we have consensus...again.--SKATER Speak. 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Now the question comes down to individual albums. Do we want to tag all the albums the same as this, or should we vary them, as SOADs sound matured over their time? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I looked over the articles for the albums, restored some deleted sourced genres, and found that "progressive" actually comes up more than "art rock" (and is the consensus, per above). "Hard rock" often comes up as well. Should that be added? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
    How many have hard rock? Its only got 1 above, so it needs quite a few. I wish someone came up with a term to describe quasi-metal/heavy-ass hard rock so that we could use that instead Metal and Hard Rock. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    All, except for Toxicity. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
    Alright. For the sake of size, we should use Alternative Metal to describe the metal, and Hard Rock to describe the not-so-metal, and place both these genres on every album (even Toxicity). I don't believe that SOAD and Steal This Album! qualify as progressive (although Peephole comes close to swaying me), and most sources agree with this as they often refer to the current sound of System, or Hyp/Mez as being progressive. SOAD (the album) is also referred to as Nu Metal by some sources, more so than the band itself is; should we make the first album have Nu Metal as a genre? Toxicity I'm indifferent about, as leans more to the metal/hard rock. SO, to sum up, this is what I propose:
  • Main article (SOAD) - Current genres (Alternative metal, progressive rock, hard rock, experimental music)
  • System of a Down - Alternative metal, hard rock, MAYBE nu metal, MAYBE experimental music
  • Toxicity - Alternative metal, hard rock, experimental music
  • STA! - Alternative metal, hard rock, experimental music
  • Mesmerize/Hypnotize - Alternative metal, progressive rock, hard rock, experimental music
    Thoughts? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The genres listed weren't based on opinion. They reflected the sources reviewing each album. Don't remove genres based on your opinion. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
    • Don't synthesize genres from sources that mention styles. There are more sources than just reviews, and it makes no sense to have 3 completely different genres on every album, especially mesmerize and hypnotize, which were written and recorded together. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:System_of_a_Down/Archive_7&oldid=1089154324"