This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm really wondering what is the use of the second paragraph, reading:
"System of a Down are noted for the left-wing political views expressed in their songs. Common topics in System of a Down's music are feelings ( depression, dark memories, love, insecurity, revenge, ego, personal identity), sex, corruption of government, social norms and corruption in/of society, war, ( Pearl Harbor, Armenian Genocide, War on Terror, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan), corruption in/of Hollywood, spiritual ( afterlife, death), drugs (use, addiction, drug dealing, war on drugs), U.S. Prison System, censorship, mind control, commercialism and the corruption in/of corporations."
First thing, there are absolutely no secondary sources included in this paragraph. Since there is no verifiability, I would say this should be removed from the article until we can find sources that validate it. Second thing, this is going into the specifics of the subjects treated in the band's lyrics. If the sources validate those points, we should probably include this paragraph in the "Style and influences" section, not the introduction. Any objections or comments? Zouavman Le Zouave 01:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't add anything to the article to devote an entire paragraph to reiterating content that has already been established. If you've seen the work of Edward D. Wood, Jr., you would understand that it's not best to say in four sentences what can be easily said in one. Devoting an entire paragraph to extensive reiteration of one genre is Ed Wood-style writing. I don't see any detailed instances in which it is reiterated that System of a Down belong to any other genre. The spam-like promotion of Encyclopaedia Metallum is pretty funny, though. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC))
Did Wikipedia ever have any info any the SOAD demo tapes? I could have sworn reading about them a while back out of curiosity, but i'm not sure if it was here, or on some SOADthemed wiki copycat page. I can't find any info about them anymore. KMFDM FAN ( talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
this is absolutely ridicules, didn't anyone learn from the 'Indestructible' page? Don't list the general 'rock' term. it doesn't work, it is misleading and it is wrong! just rock is things like the Beatles not system of a down. It is Experimental rock, Alternative Metal and you could maybe list heavy metal or hard rock. NOT just rock, at NO stage did SOAD play straight out rock music. Anyone with ears knows that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.55.11 ( talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
ok the genres that are there now are good, when I wrote that only rock was listed, it is good that that has been corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.132.103.177 ( talk) 02:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok mabe rock heavy metal and experimental should be stuck to. it seems this page can't go long without someone editing the genres i think hard rock is more approprite than rock but its good enough as i guess it covers genres such as art rock and alt rock which they play. nu metal shouldnt be there... i kno they've been called it but seriously... apart from the lack of guitar solos they have zero nu metal elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.149.98 ( talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I gave a reason for labelling them progressive. Undoing it without any reason is practically vandalism. Please provide a reasoning for your random revert. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article (and many relating to SAOD) cites soadfans.com. IMHO, it is perfectly reliable, but breaks WP:RELIABLE. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, there is one going on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The Weak Willed 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
They do not list any equipment on the member pages..... Fun with Ahmed
who felt it nessacary to change to genres... again? they were fine the way they way they were. Alt Metal, Heavy Metal, Experimental. What was the problem with that?? Ducky610 ( talk) 10:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
well considering people are dissagreeing, theres not much of a 'consensus' is there?? anyway it was listed as Alt Metl, Heavy Metal and Experimental for the longest time with little to no dispute, then out of the blue it was changed back to this so called 'consensus'. At Metal and Experimental Metal are the best way to discribe there music, and I'm sure would be the most easy to source although I havent look yet. on that i'm sure pure 'rock' can not be sourced at all, and heavy metal prehaps but not commonly. These to genres are very inaccurate at describing SOADs music. Ducky610 ( talk) 01:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think these genres even pass WP:CON as I really don't see anyone who thinks SOAD is a rock band. And it also doesn't pass WP:RS as there's no source for it. Also for Traditional heavy metal. I'm really surprised to see the admins letting this go for this long time.I think an admin just thinks the genres are fine and that's why none of us can do anything about it in this long time. Pleas stop this funny protest and do what WP:Policies say. I think a RfC will do the problem. [and pleas stop clearing every discussion about this in talk page]. Solino the Wolf 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No one has cleared the discussion, The bot's have just archived them. As for an Rfc, I'm in full support of it, I will alert Ibaran and Zouvman to get there opinions since they were the ones that found the original consensus.-- SKATER Speak. 21:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
How can a consensus get to Hard rock , alt metal and experimental rock and the infobox turn out Rock, heavy metal and experimental? Why not putting what sources and consensus say? Alt metal, hard rock and experimental ?? 94.182.83.85 ( talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I think its a long time since no one is to use Allmusic's genre section for the genre in the infobox. It is discussed a lot before. If you wanna use allmusic as a source for the genre in the infobox, you should use the reviews in allmusic, not the genre section. Solino the Wolf 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm really wondering what is the use of the second paragraph, reading:
"System of a Down are noted for the left-wing political views expressed in their songs. Common topics in System of a Down's music are feelings ( depression, dark memories, love, insecurity, revenge, ego, personal identity), sex, corruption of government, social norms and corruption in/of society, war, ( Pearl Harbor, Armenian Genocide, War on Terror, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan), corruption in/of Hollywood, spiritual ( afterlife, death), drugs (use, addiction, drug dealing, war on drugs), U.S. Prison System, censorship, mind control, commercialism and the corruption in/of corporations."
First thing, there are absolutely no secondary sources included in this paragraph. Since there is no verifiability, I would say this should be removed from the article until we can find sources that validate it. Second thing, this is going into the specifics of the subjects treated in the band's lyrics. If the sources validate those points, we should probably include this paragraph in the "Style and influences" section, not the introduction. Any objections or comments? Zouavman Le Zouave 01:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't add anything to the article to devote an entire paragraph to reiterating content that has already been established. If you've seen the work of Edward D. Wood, Jr., you would understand that it's not best to say in four sentences what can be easily said in one. Devoting an entire paragraph to extensive reiteration of one genre is Ed Wood-style writing. I don't see any detailed instances in which it is reiterated that System of a Down belong to any other genre. The spam-like promotion of Encyclopaedia Metallum is pretty funny, though. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC))
Did Wikipedia ever have any info any the SOAD demo tapes? I could have sworn reading about them a while back out of curiosity, but i'm not sure if it was here, or on some SOADthemed wiki copycat page. I can't find any info about them anymore. KMFDM FAN ( talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
this is absolutely ridicules, didn't anyone learn from the 'Indestructible' page? Don't list the general 'rock' term. it doesn't work, it is misleading and it is wrong! just rock is things like the Beatles not system of a down. It is Experimental rock, Alternative Metal and you could maybe list heavy metal or hard rock. NOT just rock, at NO stage did SOAD play straight out rock music. Anyone with ears knows that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.55.11 ( talk) 06:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
ok the genres that are there now are good, when I wrote that only rock was listed, it is good that that has been corrected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.132.103.177 ( talk) 02:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok mabe rock heavy metal and experimental should be stuck to. it seems this page can't go long without someone editing the genres i think hard rock is more approprite than rock but its good enough as i guess it covers genres such as art rock and alt rock which they play. nu metal shouldnt be there... i kno they've been called it but seriously... apart from the lack of guitar solos they have zero nu metal elements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.149.98 ( talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I gave a reason for labelling them progressive. Undoing it without any reason is practically vandalism. Please provide a reasoning for your random revert. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that this article (and many relating to SAOD) cites soadfans.com. IMHO, it is perfectly reliable, but breaks WP:RELIABLE. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, there is one going on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. The Weak Willed 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
They do not list any equipment on the member pages..... Fun with Ahmed
who felt it nessacary to change to genres... again? they were fine the way they way they were. Alt Metal, Heavy Metal, Experimental. What was the problem with that?? Ducky610 ( talk) 10:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
well considering people are dissagreeing, theres not much of a 'consensus' is there?? anyway it was listed as Alt Metl, Heavy Metal and Experimental for the longest time with little to no dispute, then out of the blue it was changed back to this so called 'consensus'. At Metal and Experimental Metal are the best way to discribe there music, and I'm sure would be the most easy to source although I havent look yet. on that i'm sure pure 'rock' can not be sourced at all, and heavy metal prehaps but not commonly. These to genres are very inaccurate at describing SOADs music. Ducky610 ( talk) 01:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think these genres even pass WP:CON as I really don't see anyone who thinks SOAD is a rock band. And it also doesn't pass WP:RS as there's no source for it. Also for Traditional heavy metal. I'm really surprised to see the admins letting this go for this long time.I think an admin just thinks the genres are fine and that's why none of us can do anything about it in this long time. Pleas stop this funny protest and do what WP:Policies say. I think a RfC will do the problem. [and pleas stop clearing every discussion about this in talk page]. Solino the Wolf 17:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No one has cleared the discussion, The bot's have just archived them. As for an Rfc, I'm in full support of it, I will alert Ibaran and Zouvman to get there opinions since they were the ones that found the original consensus.-- SKATER Speak. 21:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
How can a consensus get to Hard rock , alt metal and experimental rock and the infobox turn out Rock, heavy metal and experimental? Why not putting what sources and consensus say? Alt metal, hard rock and experimental ?? 94.182.83.85 ( talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I think its a long time since no one is to use Allmusic's genre section for the genre in the infobox. It is discussed a lot before. If you wanna use allmusic as a source for the genre in the infobox, you should use the reviews in allmusic, not the genre section. Solino the Wolf 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)