Talk:Disturbed (band)

Article for the new Disturbed single?

Should we start an article for Disturbed's next single "The Night"? 99.224.169.91 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rap Metal?

If you listen to the song stupify it could be considered rap metal. It's just one song so it doesn't make their band rap metal, but that song is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoobyDooby22 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How does Disturbed begins classified as a Rap metal band? I Looked at the source and there they didn't mention Rap metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socom88man (talk • contribs) 11:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, that's because the link was to the Ten Thousand Fists review, rather than their band overview as I thought it was. Updated now, to their overview page, which says rap metal under their genres. Prophaniti (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that source is so reliable. I don't know if you noticed but they havn't updatet that page in a while. It does still stand that Fuzz is a member of the band.

On a personal note, I don't think the source is reliable either: I feel allmusic is one of the most over-relied upon sources, and generally contains a horrific number of inaccuracies. However, that is purely personal take on it: it's accepted as a source here on wikipedia. Prophaniti (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But i noticed something else. Allmusic regard all Nu metal bands as Rap metal. Just look at bands like Slipknot & Korn. I don't know if that's gone make a difference, but it's worth mention.

It does the same with alt. metal too. It doesn't use "nu metal" in the styles section, pretty much all nu metal bands (Linkin Park, Korn, etc) will be given the "alt. metal" tag, which is just another reason I don't think it needs to be included in the infobox here, when it's just one source, and one that is known to use it where all other sources will use "nu metal". But anyway, the whole issue of weight of views settles it. Prophaniti (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox genre

In response to recent reverts: I have been reducing the genre field of the infobox to nu metal and hard rock. This isn't to deny the other sources: the other genres are mentioned in the styles and influences section. The infobox, like the lead, should aim to sum things up, and the point is here we have a large number of sources for nu metal and hard rock, then one each for alt. metal, alt. rock, rap metal and heavy metal. Six genres would just make it cluttered, so these less frequently sourced genres are better kept to the article body itself. With regards to the previous discussion, there was one user objecting to this, and three (including myself) in favour of it. Prophaniti (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any mention of heavy metal in that paragraph. All the others have been added, but heavy metal is simply mentioned because "a lot of die-hard heavy metal fans don't find Disturbed heavy enough", not because they have actually been described as heavy metal. If the others are mentioned, heavy metal should be too. James25402 (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. I hadn't intentionally left it out or anything. Prophaniti (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just changed Disturbed's genre to Hard rock, heavy metal, alternative metal, nu metal and can we keep it like that instead of just Hard rock, nu metal? Sure they're now a hard rock band (or at least for now) but we can't just forget about their previous years when they were heavy metal/alternative metal, can we? I don't think so. And if their genre HAS to be hard rock then just make it hard rock and not hard rock, nu metal. They made ONE nu metal album, that doesn't mean make them a nu metal band, obviousley and it sure as hell doesn't mean we should include that as part of their genre if they're a hard rock band that made one nu metal album. - Madroxxide17

I'm afraid that's still ultimately your analysis, your point of view. As we've mentioned in previous discussions, there are sources for them, but the firm source consensus is with nu metal and hard rock. Other genres aren't significantly sourced, and so we include those in the styles section. Prophaniti (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[1] Is he telling us what the genre is or is he speaking in general terms? 72.129.152.137 (talk) 00:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't watch it right now, but if it's the band themselves talking then it wouldn't really have a bearing on their genre anyway. It could be something worth mentioning in the article somewhere (as I say, I can't listen), but if he's talking about their genre it's only something we would report directly, not use as a source. Prophaniti (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have allmusic as listing them within the genre of Heavy Metal, not only on the main page, but on three of their albums(The Sickness, Believe, and Indestructible), there's no reason not to include it, alternative metal is arguable, but also worthy of inclusion. They certainly take a lot more from Heavy Metal than they do Hard Rock as per just about every non-inflammatory review mentions, and to only list those two genres doesn't do their inspirations or genre justice, regardless of how outdated said inspirations are on some age old allmusic overview/biography. Revrant (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, however, that we have one source for heavy metal, and likewise one source for rap metal, alternative metal and two for alternative rock. In terms of sourcing, if any genre should be added it's alt. rock. To include all those in the infobox is just cluttered: nu metal and hard rock are by far the best sourced genres, so those are best used in the infobox, while others are included in the styles section. Prophaniti (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, laughed aloud right there, I hate to not seem at all polite and professional as I normally am, but there are literally dozens of sources across the entire internet to support Heavy Metal, and I will inform you quite clearly, that many of the most influential artists of all time have up to five genres on their FA-status Wikipedia articles, comprehensiveness, not "this seems cluttered" takes precedence with this issue. Revrant (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the case, then all you need do is add said sources into the styles section, and everything will be fine. But as things stand, I see two well sourced genres and 4 lesser sourced ones. Not including them in the infobox is not denying them: it's just practical, because many bands will have a couple of genres that most sources use, and then lots of other lesser ones. Better to use the infobox to sum up the source consensus. As things stand, that's nu metal and hard rock. If you can provide sources that change that, then by all means do so. Prophaniti (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, it isn't my battle to prove this to you, it's already been proven multitudes of times, in fact you can just hop on over to your other debate turned nonsensical never-ending argument on the Indestructible page and see the massive listings of Heavy Metal to Hard Rock and Alternative Metal, it is your battle to find a Wikipedia institution that says quite explicitly "do not clutter the genre infobox with more than two genres", or something else to support your argument, I already have a mountain of evidence over there for mine, it's now your job, to deliver support for your end of the argument, please leave that piece of the article alone until you do, thank you. Revrant (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you yourself take a look at the indestructible talk page, you'll notice I was one of the two primary editors involved in the recent dispute about the genre there. More specifically, I was arguing strongly against fewer genres, and for the inclusion of "heavy metal" there. So I am by no means some kind of editor biased against the band being termed heavy metal, nor against more genres.

In this particular case, you keep arguing that you have a mountain of evidence for this, yet repeatedly I have asked you to provide that, and you haven't. If you do have masses of evidence, all you have to do is (as I have already told you) add it into the styles section. It's not good enough to just say "There're lots of sources that say this, so there". You have to show us these sources. If they are there, then great :) Add them in and I see no problem with heavy metal being included in the infobox. But right now you're not provided any evidence to back up your claims. Prophaniti (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of that exact argument, which has reached epic proportions and is somewhat ridiculous at this point, but I digress, I did not insinuate bias, I have no comprehension of your reasoning, certainly not enough to claim any kind of bias.

See the archives, and also refer to your very discussion on the Indestructible talk page, though I'm not entirely sure why I have to provide this given it's been provided in the past, I guess this is the way of Wikipedia - endless redundancy.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:a9fuxqrkldfe

http://www.lvrj.com/neon/38688834.html Las Vegas Review Journal

http://www.heavymetalhog.com/disturbed.html Included are the two reviews which cite Disturbed as Heavy Metal

http://heavymetal.about.com/od/disturbed/p/disturbed.htm

http://www.heavymetalresource.com/reviews407.html I found the use of the term "modern metal" interesting.

All of that from a quick three page internet search, that's how fast and easy it was, if I had magazine access, which I unfortunately don't, I would have a litany of even more reputable sources, or so I theorize. Revrant (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, taking a look at them, I'd suggest asking about most of them at the reliable sources noticeboard, or if you don't wish to, then I can. Allmusic we already have in there. The others I'm uncertain as to the true reliablility of. I'm not saying they're not reliable, just that I can't tell at a quick glance whether they are or not, and I'd like to get the opinions of other editors on them before including them in the article. Prophaniti (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You go right ahead, I refuse to argue "reliability" with a site that uses the Rolling Stone as it's top musical source with zealous, unflinching dedication, a site and magazine I consider to be of contemptible quality, professionalism, fact responsibility, and real reliability throughout it's history. The Wikipedia consensus often appears to be if it isn't in print, it isn't really reliable, and if it is in print, that is somehow indicative of it's quality, which I vehemently disagree with at all levels.

I'm not defending their quality myself of course, Las Vegas Review Journal is the only one I'd even fight for given it's a well established site with strong traffic, The Gaff is a just a small media site, the others aren't really anything special. The issue with those "big", "reliable" print names is many seem to refuse the idea of placing bands in genres, and handle only the album's genre, even to go so far as to not give it a clear genre, a generic genre, or rarely, and ideally, taking a stand on the album's genre. Furthermore all my attempts during the Indestructible nomination process to make contact with these pretentious magazines was met with either rudeness or surreptitious attempts to force me off on some other branch of their departments until I gave up. Revrant (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of some of the details of reliability either. Allmusic, for instance, I personally consider to be an atrocious source, worthless on genre matters. After all, this is the site that terms Nightwish "black metal" :P However, that's how the place works, so I just work within that and try to do what is possible. For now, I'll ask about those sources on the noticeboard. Prophaniti (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic doesn't appear to update their genre and main listings after the initial creation of the page unfortunately, otherwise I consider them to be above all others in most regards, their reviews aren't condescending, irresponsible non-fact-checked tripe like the Rolling Stone, and their biographies are always of top quality, by comparison, Disturbed's biography on the Rolling Stone is a literal joke, http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/disturbed/biography as you can plainly see. Revrant (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That Las Vegas Review Journal looks perfectly acceptable to me, although the others I would agree it'd be best to get other people's opinions on. James25402 (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, here is another source referring to the band as heavy metal. I'm aware it lists Disturbed with a bunch of other so-called "heavy metal" bands who can clearly be sub-categorised further, but as we are dealing with this article and not those of the bands named, we won't worry about that.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/life/stories/2009/02/27/Concert_announcement_.html

Here is one more:

http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608003634/Disturbed.html James25402 (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed your formatting there, good stuff, the former seems rather reputable, the latter doesn't, both good catches. Revrant (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reliable sources noticeboard enquiry generally seems to conclude that the Las Vegas Journal source and the about.com one are reliable for this. So my recommendation would be adding those, and that dispatch one, into the styles section as citations for "heavy metal", and then keeping that in the infobox.

I'd like to make it clear, in case anyone got the wrong idea, that I've nothing against the band being termed "heavy metal". The only thing I ever have against genre changes is when they're done without sources. I learned a while ago that letting my personal opinion influence genres on wikipedia is simply frustrating and won't get me anywhere. Prophaniti (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was accusing you of bias, indeed I wasn't entirely clear on the reasoning until you explained it, but unlike certain other parties who thankfully moved on to other things back in 07, I never saw any obvious "bias" that you could be accused of. Good news all the same though, sources are always appreciated regardless of their notability. Revrant (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, don't worry, I didn't think you (or anyone) was accusing me of it :) I just meant I'm aware of how it can sound, as if a metalhead arguing "Disturbed aren't metal!". Personally, I think they've got enough elements of it (certainly nowadays) for it to be included. And with the sources there, there's no problem at all. Prophaniti (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Only six other rock bands have released three number-one albums in a row"

I'm rather perturbed by this, obviously Disturbed is indeed quite right to be included, but I'm a little miffed by the other bands included in this assertion, and I'm wondering if we, in light of this falsehood, shouldn't remove them from the page.

See it includes Van Halen, but Van Halen has no studio album released in 1996, but it cites 1996, and the only thing released is a compilation "best of" album, which is not a studio album.

Then it includes System of a Down, which is even more disconcerting, after looking at it, it decided not to include "Steal This Album!" for no apparent reason, while at the same time including "Lonely Days" to reach "three consecutive studio album No. 1" status, but "Lonely Days" is not a full studio album as with all the others barring Van Halen, it is simply an EP.

I don't see this as logical, it seems they're playing exception to the rules they establish in the same paragraph for no apparent reason. Revrant (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

why is system of a down in the list? They didn't have 3 consecutive albums topping the Billboard 200 chart. They released toxicity, which was number 1, then steal this album, which did not reach number 1. then they released hypnotize and mezmerize, which both did reach number 1. so they have had three number 1 albums, but not concecutive. then another band that should be included is pearl jam as they have had three number 1 albums in a rowMetalMagnet1987 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a new citation if you wish, but please don't keep changing cited material. IncidentalPoint (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference and the examples should be removed. The citation cannot be confirmed through other sources.

To clarify further...the criteria are very specific: "Only six other rock bands have released three consecutive number one debuts with studio albums in the United States." In other words, the first three non-live albums a band has released in the United States went to #1. The Beatles first 9 went to #1 in the UK, however, their first LP in the U.S. went only to #2, and thus does not make these specific criteria. However, Van Halen didn't have a #1 LP until their 6th release. System of a Down's first album didn't make #1, and never had 3 consecutive #1s. U2 didn't have a #1 LP until later in their career. etc etc. Kingturtle (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the source refers to the first three albums released by the band when they use the word debut. This refers to the first week of release; ie, "Indestructible debuted at no. 1 in the Billboard Top 200 charts". So just so long as three albums in a row charted at No. 1 in their first week of release, then they meet the criteria. Regardless, WP:V states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus, considering the source meets the WP:RS standards, the material is verifiable, and so can stay. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please stop changing this to seven. Pearl Jam doesn't have 3 consecutive number one debuts. It says that right in the cited article. Disturbedmb (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't work solely on verifiability, especially for something that has no system of fact checking or peer review, and is electronic media, and indeed we have direct evidence that the source contradicts itself twice, if there are glaring errors even a dullard can point out the source is not reliable. Revrant (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Night artwork

Is this the actual artwork for The Night? [2] 72.129.152.137 (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Single genres

Okay, as I was browsing through the articles of Disturbed's singles, I noticed that all of the labeled genres for the songs were "Rock" or "Hard rock". Look, just because Disturbed is considered a rock band now doesn't make all of their past songs classifiable as "Rock". So now that they're a so-called rock band, that turns "Down with the Sickness" from a nu metal song to a rock song? Does that turn "Stricken" from a heavy metal song to a rock song? I've reset the genres for the singles back to their original setting and may I ask that we keep it that way? I hope you guys are understanding my points because you can't tell me that just because they're a "rock band" that all of their past material is automatically changed to rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (complain • contribs) 00:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now somebody went and took the genre off all of Diturbed's genres. And that did what to help anything? Last I checked, there was no consensus reached that called to remove all of the genres on the articles for Disturbed's singles so I'll ask that nobody do it again or I'm gonna start reporting people for vandalism.--Madroxxide17 (complain) 14:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

K... We SERIOUSLY Need to fix this Genre Problem

K... I have read the earlier posts, but still, this is total bull crap man. 1. Just because a Band "says" their a genre, doesen't make them that genre. 2. I agree with the Current Heavy Metal/Nu Metal/Hard Rock list on their infobox, but would also agree with the addition of Alternative Metal to that list. 3. Come on, listen to the Freakin' Music Dude! Remember, Liberate, Down With the Sickness, and the Game are all Definate Nu Metal Songs. Stricken, Indestructible, Perfect Insanity, and Inside the Fire are DEFINATELY 100% pure HEAVY METAL. Hard Rock can Be heard in songs like The Night, land of Confusion, and the Game. That's it. Nu Metal. Heavy Metal. Hard Rock. 3. 1 last thing, I think that by "Die Hard" Heavy Metal fans, their talkin' real Metalheads who listen to stuff like Lamb of God, Demon hunter, As I Lay Dying, and even maybe, Bullet For My Valentine; Stuff in the Death Metal/Metalcore spectrum.

Just saying. Altenhofen 02:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It's really starting to annoy me but I think the issue is mainly on the Indestructible album article and the main Disturbed article than anywhere else. Although, if you read my topic above, a little while ago, someone got the brilliant idea to change the genre to nearly all of Disturbed's singles to "rock" but I corrected all of that. Other than that, the issue is mainly in just two articles. I personally think that the Disturbed infobox genre is okay, but it could use an Alternative metal but apparentley, that would "clutter the infobox" (not criticizing anyone) so, yeah. Oh well, take what we can get you know? But anyways, I think the Indestructible album article is where its the worst, they have the album's genre labeled as "rock" and as I say in the discussion page to that article, I think that the members currently debating the issue don't know the difference between Hard rock and just plain Rock (feel free to join in on the debate). Indeed, this issue needs to be resolved now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the headline(s) to "rock" was not some random "brilliant idea", but a consensus that was reached in a previous discussion. It is because the genre issue can't seem to be resolved that the headline is set this way. Is it heavy metal? Hard rock? Alternative metal? Nu metal? This is something people don't agree about. So, using the term "rock music" includes all those given possibilities, which is why the discussion we had, i think, 1 year ago brought this result. This, of course, is debatable (which is what we are doing now), and if we can reach a new consensus, we should all go with it. This is why i have reverted your edits to the other disturbed articles. Given that the "conflict" still endures, i think the way it is now is fine. PS @ Altenhofen: You would come across *a lot* of criticism if you really were to state that metalheads are people who listen to bands like Lamb of God, or Bullet for my Valentine. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was talking Serious Metalheads, who do think that disturbed ain't hard enough, like a person I know ho does listen to Lamb of God, and does say that Disturbed is Pathetic. I personally think that Disturbed Rocks, but I also like Bullet For My Valentine, and Killswitch engage to name a couple.

And also, yes it is Heavy metal; that is the most obvious thing in the world. Hard Rock? Probably, I wouldn't "classify" them as that though. Nu Metal; definately, but only on their debut album; and maybe some of there stuff on Believe. Alternative Metal? Yes, there music has not changed much, but the suddle changes have moved them into Alternative metal; the genre that Spawned Nu Metal. That's it.

Altenhofen 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think calling their genre "rock" helps at all. Being that all of Disturbed's material, if not, most of it is heavy metal and refering to Disturbed as a "rock band" isn't helpful at all. The genre in this article's infobox even has "heavy metal" metal listed first (which had better not change because it'll only make matters worse; we're trying to settle this debate, remember?) so calling Disturbed a rock band on everything else makes no sense at all. And as far as the genres for their singles go, I suggest we leave them as they are; and as I've said before, there's a fine difference between "rock" and "hard rock" and there's a difference between "hard rock" and "heavy metal". Who cares if they're similar? That doesn't stop the genres from being separate genres, each with a different sound. Also, I'm not mad while typing this, I'm just saying so if you guys don't turn this into a heated exchange, neither will I.--Madroxxide17 (complain) 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Rock" would technically be correct becuase subgenres like hard rock, heavy metal, and nu metal would all fit under the genre of "Rock". I agree that Disturbed fits under all of the listed genres (heavy metal, hard rock, nu metal, alternative metal) but I think it's safe just to simply put "Rock" as the general genre until an agreement can be made. 72.129.154.83 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to copy myself from the Indestructible talk page, but I can't think of an alternative to describe this statement: I see just plain "rock" as not too hard, not too soft and not too progressive, not too grungy. Bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, and Loverboy are described as "rock" and not any other specific type of genre, sure they have subgenres like "hard rock", etc. but their overall genre is, in fact "rock". Disturbed's overall genre is Heavy metal and that's a fact; describing Disturbed as "Rock" would be like describing Slipknot as Soft rock and again, sure Metal is an evolved form of rock music but we all need to remember that it's still its own specific genre and is often counted as its own genre and not just a branch of rock music in today's media/music industry. I'm perfectly fine with what their genre is classified as on the article (although it doesn't have Alternative metal listed, but again: we should just take what we can out of this). And as for their singles, if we just absolutely have to make all their singles one type of genre and not what their actual type of genre is, then can we at least go with "Metal" and not "Rock"? At least it wouldn't be as inaccurate as "Rock" is. And remember, please keep this debate clean. --Madroxxide17 (complain) 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would absolutely agree that some of the songs could have the "heavy metal" label. This, however, should not influence the headline of any of the articles, as it refers to the band itself, not the specific song of the article.
• Disturbed's overall genre is Heavy metal and that's a fact; - And this is exactly where MANY people would disagree. Having the headlines of Disturbed articles present them as a pure heavy metal band would likely outrage many heavy metal fans. We've already had this. I really think it's best to leave it the way it is.
• About the infobox. I remember that we had a consensus that nu metal and alternative metal should be the first two genres in the infobox and that hard rock and heavy metal should be the seconds two genres in the list, thus, including alternative metal. This made sense, as their musical style was undoubtfully nu metal in the beginning, and alternative metal is a term loose enough to include most of their works - hard rock and heavy metal also undoubtedly were a hearable influence. As i've been absent for quite a while, i can't be sure whether this was discussed again and a new consensus was reached, but i think you could add alternative metal to the list again without much opposition. At least not from me. Personally, i still think alternative metal fits them best. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that not all of their songs are Heavy Metal, only a handful of them are but a majority of their material is metal music, be it alternative metal, nu metal, or heavy metal and not hard rock. If we really can't refer to them as a metal band, then can we at least put their headline as Disturbed being a hard rock band? I don't see where we couldn't because bands like Kiss and Aerosmith are refered to as hard rock bands on all, if not, most their albums, for which they are.
• You really think changing their headline to heavy metal would outrage metal fans? Not saying it wouldn't, but I just can't see how people would be outraged by that. Anyways, as I said in the paragraph above: can we at least make their headline refer to Disturbed as a "metal" band or a "hard rock" band?
• I wouldn't say Alternative metal fits them the best because they still have that heavy and dark sound in their music. I think the infobox should read "Heavy metal, alternative metal, hard rock, nu metal" But the way it is now is fine with me, if we can only get three of the four genres prefered, then I can live with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Over all, all of us are (for the most part) absolutely correct (except for that ip dude), Disturbed is not a rock band, calling them "rock" is like calling The Rolling Stones Heavy Metal, incorrect. But, Hard rock, generally is correct, and I do think that on their singles articles and their article itself it should say stuff like "song is a single released by American Hard Rock Band, Disturbed", or "Disturbed is a Hard Rock/Heavy metal Band from Chicago". It's actally pretty simple, and I don't get why you people think that "calling them Heavy Metal would outrage Metal fans" or that because heavy Metal is a subgenre of rock, they are rock. Well, Death metal is a subgenre of Heavy metal, making it a subgenre of rock, so are we going to go to the Amon Amarth article and list them as rock? no! Disturbed's genres are Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal, Nu Metal, and possibly (maybe only as a broad label), Hard Rock. Anyways, I am a serious metalhead, and I like bands like Bullet for my Valentine, and As I Lay Dying (metalcore Bands), and Even I think Disturbed is pretty Hardcore. Altenhofen 01:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Amon Amarth's genre is much easier to define than Disturbed's. Nobody would disagree with Amon Amarth being a melodic death metal band. However, people do disagree with statements such as "Disturbed is a heavy metal band" or "Disturbed is a hard rock band". Which leads me to the next point; A headline presenting them as a hard rock band would be even more misleading than introducing them as a heavy metal band: When you plain and simply use the term "hard rock", people will think of the Stones, AC/DC and similar bands. While Disturbed absolutely have hard rock influences, they don't really sound alike the bands mentioned. Also, it is unfair of you, Altenhofen, to discriminate someone's opinion without any basis and calling them "ip dude". His opinion is just as valid without an account, and i think his statement is correct and sound.
It doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere. Given that we've had this discussion before, and a consensus, or more a settlement was reached, i think we should leave it the way it is until we have a new result. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not criticizing you at all, but what kind of metal fan would think of old bands like AC/DC and the Stones (The Stones aren't really hard rock at all, by the way) if we were to refer to Disturbed as a hard rock band? I think they'd be thinking of today's hard rock sound, which is a bit more heavier than the old. And the hard rock I hear in Disturbed's music is definatley the new hard rock sound I'm talking about. And how are you so sure that changing Disturbed's genre will outrage people? Not saying it didn't happen before, but if it will truly outrage people, let them say something in the discussion page and we can sort it out. Also, give this debate some time, man. It's only been a couple days, not getting anywhere would be us debating this subject for over two weeks without us reaching even a minor consensus. When the U.S. Congress is debating on whether to pass a bill or not, do you think it gets done in just a few days? (Don't answer that, just an expression)--Madroxxide17 (complain) 14:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well lets hear what Disturbed thinks.[3] Rock and Metal (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"You know, Disturbed has been tabbed as Nu Rock, Alternative Rock, Hard Rock, how do you all classify yourselves?"

"Well, if you ask us, we're a Metal band."

That pretty much sums it up for me! David Draiman himself says that Disturbed is a metal band and not a rock band and if you guys can't even take the frontman of Disturbed's word for it, then I guess it'll either take the end of the world or you guys are just plain stubborn (no offense) because that's practically as much proof that Disturbed is a metal band as you can get. I don't know how we can't come to a consensus that Disturbed is a metal band now (not Heavy Metal, not Alternative Metal, etc. just Metal). Also, thanks for posting that vid Rock and Metal, much appreciated! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (complain • contribs) 04:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am giving it time, i didn't dismiss ther topic or anything similar, did i? I just wanted to press that we should leave the article as it is while the discussion still ensues and no result has come out of it. Also, what the band itself says is rather irrelevant. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle down here, alright?. I say that because your first sentence in your last post looks like you're getting agitated, forgive me if you're not. Now, what makes you say that what the band has to say is irrelevant? As in how could it be irrelevant and how does David Draiman's word not change the opinion of their genre?--Madroxxide17 (complain) 13:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, i'm not suggesting this is the case here, but imagine this: The general population views the term "foo metal" as not cool. "moo metal", on the other hand, is very cool! (these are just examples) - So, if some typical foo metal band were to state on their homepage that they were a moo metal band, just so their fans could clamp to a label that makes them feel cooler, does that make the band a moo metal band? No, they would still be a foo metal band, and a misguided one at that. While this may not apply to Disturbed, i hope it displays why you can't take a primary source's word for it. And yes, i know moo and foo are silly words to use. Sorry about that. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay....well, I can't see that fictional case as Disturbed's case. If you gave me an example of an actual band that did/does that, I might understand it better. Let's go with Black Sabbath. In their earlier days, Black Sabbath hated being called Heavy Metal because, at the time in the late '60s, early '70s, Heavy Metal had a bad image for being more heavier and darker than rock so Sabbath referred to themselves as a rock band because it sounded better even though they were a full-on heavy metal band until the sound became so widespread that they didn't care anymore. Disturbed, however, has every reason to call themselves a metal band and not a rock band. Most of their material is, of course, (Heavy, Alternative, Nu) metal music and only chunk of it, mainly in their recent material, is hard rock (and not just plain rock! There's a difference, remember?). Plus, they've only recently started to add more of the hard rock sound as heard in their latest album, Indestructible which still has their heavy metal sound in it and is kind of half heavy metal, half hard rock. So being that Disturbed's case is nothing like early Sabbath's case, (as in, Disturbed doesn't deny their true genre), I'd say we have pretty good reason to take the primary source's word for it. Yes, David Draiman did say that Disturbed "is more hard rock these days" but by that, I think he meant that they've added more of a hard rock sound in their music and wasn't refering to their overall genre because if he was, why would he call Disturbed a metal band now? Also, for all we know, they're going to go right back to their overall metal sound in their next release. I think it'd only be appropriate to call Disturbed a hard rock band if they release another album with the hard rock sound heard on Indestructible or an album with an overall hard rock sound but only time will tell what their next album will be. For now, calling them a "rock band" should be considered out of the question and calling them a "metal band" is definatley more appropriate. --Madroxxide17 (complain) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but; I think altogether this has gotten a bit out of hand, my only real intentions where for you people to understand that disturbed is Heavy metal, and that Alternative Metal could also easily be used to describe them. Also, twsx dude, I called the ip dude ip dude, because that is my choice in grammar, and it was not discrimination, discrimination would be excluding someone from a group because of they ethnicity, and I absolutley disagree with anything of that sort. What I was saying, is that the ip dude (or ip user if you will) was incorrect in saying that becasue Disturbed could be catagorized as a "subgenre of rock" (wich is correct), they are rock, that is why I said that it is basically like calling Amon Amarth Rock, because even though they are Melodic Death metal, that is a subgenre of Heavy Metal, which in turn is a subgenre of Rock. That's it, calm down. Altenhofen 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I still can't see how you, twsx, or anyone else can argue with David Draiman's statement that Disturbed is a metal band (with all due respect, I find it ridiculous). As I've said, that pretty much sums it up right there, and you say that the primary source's word is not always relevant, well Disturbed's so-called case is nothing like early Black Sabbath's or any other band with the exact or similar case, they aren't denying their true genre and they have a very good reason to call themselves metal and not rock, because that's what they are! If you still can't see that Disturbed is a Metal band now, then I'll truly begin to think that stubborness and ignorance is truly the case...--Madroxxide17 (complain) 04:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I Totally agree with you, but at the same time, as I said before: "just because A Band (or it's members in that case) SAY they are a certain genre, it doesn't make them one. Like in the Case of Nu Metal, Most Nu Metal bands originally denied that genre, and classified themselves as just plain Heavy Metal. But, I do have to say Draiman's statement was correct, they Are Heavy metal.

Another thing that I really have to say is, instead of "cluttering the infobox" as some of you stubbornly said earlier in the discussion, Why don't we just put their genre as "Multiple forms of Heavy metal", then at the bottom of the genre section, put "Though, Disturbed can be Classified as Nu Metal, Heavy Metal, Hard Rock, and Alternative Metal"?

Altenhofen 16:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "Multiple forms of Heavy metal" would work. We have to put the genre names in the infobox and not any other text, only exceptions are putting "early material", etc. in parentheses. And on the so-called "infobox cluttering" issue, I don't see where "cluttering" the infobox would hurt the article so bad. There are many of articles about bands on wikipedia that have "cluttered" infoboxes in the genre section. Look at Staind, Tool, Saliva, Jonathan Davis, Alice Cooper, Rob Zombie, and Marilyn Manson. They all have "cluttered" genres in their infoboxes so why would putting or "cluttering" Disturbed's with "Heavy metal, hard rock, alternative metal, nu metal" be any different? Will it really damage the article that bad?

Again, I can live with how the infobox is now, without Alternative metal included but I can't see where "cluttering" is such an issue. --Madroxxide17 (complain) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Many Bands do not have there genres in their infobox, look at Evanescence. Also, I do agree, cluttering the infobox would be putting like six or seven different genres, not 4. Like look at Joe Satriani, he's got 6 or 7. Altenhofen 21:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's been 3 days and no objection to our statements so I'll give it another day and if no one else has anything to say about this, I'll consider this debate over and a consensus reached.--Madroxxide17 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll just state my opinion on the issue, now it's up to you to see if that fits the hypothetical consensus or not. I think we should have "is a rock band" in the introduction, in order to respect WP:NPOV, since many do not see Disturbed as a metal band. Rock includes metal, so this is completely neutral. As for the infobox, I believe we should have nu metal, hard rock, alternative metal. Heavy metal is kind of redundant, but I am not opposed to its inclusion in the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, sure metal is an evolved form of rock, but that doesn't mean it's not its own genre of music. So being that Metallica is a heavy metal band, because heavy metal is a form of rock, do we start calling them a rock band now? Absolutley not. We don't have to refer to Disturbed as a heavy metal band, we can just put their headline as "metal band". Maybe not all of their material is heavy metal, but quite a bit of it is, that or alternative metal and nu metal so there is no reason why heavy metal shouldn't be included in the infobox. Also, to list nu metal as their first genre in the infobox would be very misleading. They only did one nu metal album, The Sickness so listing nu metal as the first genre in the infobox wouldn't suit the article. We're going by overall genre in the infobox, not in order of what genres they first played.--Madroxxide17 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't really add anything, as everything i can reply to the posts since my last post, i've already said. A few things to note:

• In no way was there a consensus reached. More info can be found here: WP:DEFINECONSENSUS and/or WP:CON.
• As in discussions we had 2 years ago, and again 18 months ago, and again 12 months ago, and again 6 months ago, i completely agree with Zouaveman Le Zouave. He too has been around to see what happened in these discussions and the precedent editing conflicts.
• I like, no, i love the idea Evanescence-like solutions to the infobox. I think we should implement that. It doesn't fix the issue about the headline, though.

~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone believes Disturbed to be purely a rock band. Sure metal falls under rock, but to just leave it at rock would mean all other band articles sould be changed to rock as well. That wouldn't make much sense. Many people today often get the wrong idea of what heavy metal is. When they hear heavy metal, nowadays many people think of bands like All That Remains, Killswitch Engage, Lamb of God, etc.(metalcore bands in general). But real heavy metal bands, or what was originally classified as heavy metal, would be bands like Judas Priest, Megadeth, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, etc. I like what the Lordi article did by putting "Lordi is a Hard rock/Heavy Metal band from..." Rock and Metal (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I shouldn't have posted what I posted yesterday and for that, I apologize. That really wasn't a fair thing for me to say. *slaps self in the head*

Anyways, I don't think making Disturbed's infobox like Evanescence's will do much good because I think it'd be better for the viewer to see what genre a band is at the very beginning of an article in the infobox instead of having to go scroll down/click to the middle of the article to see what genre the band is. Back on topic, I hope you guys are understanding the points I'm trying to make in my previous posts. Yes, metal music originated from rock music but does that really matter anymore? I think it didn't ever since the the late '70s and all through the '80s when metal music became widespread. Just because metal derived from rock doesn't mean it's not its own specific genre. That doesn't mean that we call metal bands like KoЯn, Metallica, Tool, and Disturbed rock bands now, does it? No, it doesn't. If Disturbed has to be any form of rock, then we need to call them hard rock and not just plain rock. There's a fine difference between rock and hard rock that I hope you guys understand after my explanation and I won't explain that again, you'll have to read my previous posts. But David Draiman himself said that Disturbed is a metal band not a rock band and he's in no denial, he's not lying, and he's not saying that because it makes the band look better. He has a pretty good reason to call his band a metal band because it's true, most of Disturbed's material is metal, be it alternative, nu, or heavy, it is metal music. Again, he's not in denial as early Black Sabbath was when they called themselves hard rock because metal made them look bad at the time and we have every reason to take Draiman's word for it. I still find it ridiculous that we're still debating this issue because as I've said before, Draiman calling his band a metal band wraps it up for me and by that, I mean it convinces me that Disturbed is metal and yes, a little bit of hard rock but that little bit doesn't make them a hard rock band nor a "rock" band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like you deny heavy metal's belonging to the rock genre. Let me make things simple for you: heavy metal is a form of rock. It's not simply influenced by rock, it's a direct offspring of rock music. We can quote this Wikipedia article on the subject: "Heavy metal [...] is a genre of rock music." Long story short, a metal band is a rock band. In the case of Metallica, which you brought up, yes, the introduction will say "metal band" because there is a general acceptance of Metallica's belonging to the metal genre. However, when this is not the case, like with Disturbed, we must not exclude a major point of view. Calling the band a "rock band" in the introduction does not imply that it cannot play heavy metal music, but calling the band a "metal band" only expresses the point of view of some. Zouavman Le Zouave 05:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that heavy metal music is not its own genre of music and it's the same scenario as rap and hip-hop (how they're both the same)? And I don't believe I'm in denial of anything because as I've been saying, I believe that heavy metal music is its own genre and not just a subgenre of rock and I know quite a few people who would agree with me but we're not gonna worry about that. If you look at my last post, I said that I know that metal did come from rock but that doesn't mean it's not its own genre. I'm sure it was when the sound first came out but when it became so widespread, when there so many heavy metal abnds, it eventually became its own genre. But I guess I'm wrong because apparantley heavy metal music isn't metal after all and is just a subgenre of rock, right? It's a shame we can't have a poll on this so we could see if Disturbed being a metal band really is the point-of-view of some.--Madroxxide17 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This whole paragraph sounds like original research to me. Unless you have any reliable and verifiable sources, there is no reason to deny metal's belonging to the rock genre. Fact is : rock music includes heavy metal music. This is a widely reported musical fact, and I don't know of any reliable, credible sources that support your claim that "metal is not rock". Zouavman Le Zouave 22:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it would make more sense to put "rock" or "metal" as the overall genre. But why not put "Disturbed is an American Hard rock/Heavy metal band from..." like the Lordi article? Rock and Metal (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

K, are you saying we should have a pole?!? that would be the ultimate example of POV. A poll is based on peoples point of view, and if we let their point of view decide this, it won't be encyclopedic. Another thing, Zouavman Le Zouave, you say that it is "generally accepted" that Metallica is a metal band, I would sorta agree becasue they are Thrah Metal (which itself spawned death metal), but every one I know Loves Disturbed, and agrees on them being a Heavy Metal Band. Like, Listen to Perfect Insanity, then the Day that never comes. I think you will find Perfect Insanity more "hardcore".

Last but not least, for the second time; this is getting out of hand. We need to settle this soon, the discussion has taken over half the talk page. Altenhofen 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Rock and Metal on making the headline "hard rock/heavy metal" like Lordi's. And when I said we should have a poll, I didn't mean have a poll in which the best vote will decide the headline for Disturbed, I meant we should have poll to see what people think Disturbed's genre should be but this isn't a web forum so we can't so let's drop that, please. But anyways, I do like the idea of making their headline "hard rock/heavy metal". To me, it looks like it's right up our allies because one group says Disturbed is rock/hard rock and the other says that they're heavy metal and if we put "hard rock/heavy metal", then both sides win, no? If we were to have that as their headline, I could sure live it, it seems fair for both sides to me. Is everyone else okay with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madroxxide17 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea. Also, I think we should put in their info box, instead of just "Nu Metal", we should put "Nu Metal (Earlier material)", like in the Papa Roach Article. Altenhofen 02:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's slow down a little. Let me reply to the many suggestions that have just been made. On writing "hard rock/heavy metal" in the infobox: constructive idea, but still non-neutral. The best neutral way is to word it "is a rock band," for it includes hard rock, heavy metal, nu metal, and all the genres that Disturbed has ever been classified as. The "is a rock band" is not a "side", as Madroxxide17 claims it is. It encompasses all sides, which is what neutrality is all about. We can put the different subgenres of rock in the infobox or in the body of the article; let's not spread this plague into the introduction. On adding "earlier material," I think this has nothing to do in the infobox. If there are verifiable sources claiming that the older material is nu metal and the new material isn't, then this belongs in the body of the article, not in the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say "is a rock band" was a side, I said one side of members of this debate say the headline should say "is a rock band" and that the other side says it should say "is a metal band". I was refering to the two groups of people in this deabte, not the genres. Not saying it was intentional, but try not to put words in my mouth or in this case, posts. I don't see why we can't put the "hard rock/heavy metal" and "nu metal (early material)" in the article because if it works with the Lordi and Papa Roach articles, why can't it work for Disturbed? I say we let the viewers decide if making the headline "hard rock/heavy metal" is a non-neutral decision and if they have anything to say, let them state their opinion in here. And no offense, but it's pretty obvious that Disturbed only had the nu metal sound on their first album so I think it'd be safe to put "(early material)" after nu metal without the use of sources. We kind of have a source right here on wikipedia: If one were to look at all four of Disturbed's albums, they'd see that The Sickness is their only album that has nu metal. Again, if it works for Lordi and Papa Roach, why isn't it okay for Disturbed, not the bands are comparable, but my point is: if it can work for two bands, why can't it work for another?--Madroxxide17 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, this discussion has gone on long enough. The reason the opening sentence states 'rock band' is to be neutral. We cannot have the opening sentence state 'heavy metal', 'hard rock' or 'nu metal' because the verifiable sources seem to be split between the three. If we changed it to 'hard rock', while it is possible that heavy metal could be classified under hard rock, 'hard rock' is more specific and therefore comes across as less neutral. 'Hard rock' would place more emphasis on this than on 'heavy metal' and 'nu metal' and would not be particularly neutral. If we changed the opening to 'nu metal', we are basically saying the band are not heavy metal, which would discredit those sources and also the sources saying the band are 'hard rock'. Likewise with heavy metal.

With all due respect, the genres are the way they are in the infobox for a reason. While on a personal level I agree that Disturbed should be labelled alternative metal, the fact is there are pretty much no sources calling Disturbed alt. metal (aside from AMG). This is why we won't be adding the genre to the infobox, unless more reliable sources terming the band as such are found.

Also, Zouavman, I think it's quite clear through all of the discussions we've all had on Disturbed's genre that you don't believe the band are heavy metal and I am not accusing you of attempting to push your own bias onto the article, but to say that 'heavy metal' being in the infobox is 'redundant' is ridiculous. It was taken out for a while because there were not enough sources to justify it being there, but once several sources (three or four) were produced it was agreed to re-add it to the infobox. It is there not because Disturbed are a heavy metal band, or because it is a metagenre, but because the sources (which, as you know, is the way wikipedia works) are great enough to justify it.

Prophaniti did a great job of making this article more professional and of making sure only sourced information stayed within it, I would hate to start seeing people insert their own POV. So remember everyone, please stick with the sources. I'm by no means saying we shouldn't discuss these things, but if you are trying to justify a change, please do it with sources, not by attempting to use original research. James25402 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The Papa Roach and Mötley Crüe articles all have many genres in the infobox and yet they both state "is a hard rock band from..." It doesn't make much sense to me that those articles all have many genres listed and yet they are able to list them as a hard rock band. So why can't we do this for Disturbed? The Disturbed article has many genres listed and yet it simply says "rock". Rock and Metal (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You should attempt to, James, two years ago he did just about everything in his power to destroy the Disturbed article and everything associated with it, he even attempted to create a Mallcore article which featured pictures of Disturbed and attempted to further destroy any ounce of credibility they have as a band with what were paragraphs of slander and attacks on they and other bands.

That twsx continually agreed with everything he did at that point in time further lends to the idea of extreme bias being behind this and their past extremely antagonistic approaches toward the Disturbed article at the time, indeed the extent each went through to try to deface the article and the massive discussions that would brink on flame wars therein are hard evidence of their previously maligned attitude toward the band and thus the article.

That said, both eventually abandoned these detrimental activities after the Mallcore article was obliterated from the face of Wikipedia twice in a row and enough editors bitterly fought them on multiple fronts using hard rules and administrators to assist in the matter. Disturbed are simply heavy metal and hard rock at this point, to place them in the same genre as System of a Down seems odd.

On top of that, I do agree with keeping it "rock", I wouldn't disagree with plainly "metal" either, but being specific seems to be the work of other sections further in, as the encyclopedia definitely should work as an introduction to the material at the start with the use of intelligent summarizing. Revrant (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Night

Well, i guess it's chart posissions are pretty good, Why doesent it have an Article? I would add it if I had time, but my schedule is getting pretty tight these days... But, should we give it an article? Altenhofen 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me reword that, Why is the article, STILL A REDIRECT? Altenhofen 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been officially released as a single. Disturbedmb (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just looked it up, it has been released.

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0nfpxzqjldse~T31 http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.chartFormatGroupName=Singles&model.vnuArtistId=382997&model.vnuAlbumId=1138597 Can be used to cite. Disturbedmb (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

ya, cause Ive been hearing it on the radio multiple times in the last 3 weeks, And anyways, LOADS of songs have been given articles WAY before they where released, take Know Your Enemy by Green day, it's had an article for like, 2 months I think, and it has only been out for like a week. Altenhofen 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mhmm. Unfotunately there won't be much to base the article on, since D1 doesn't have the music video up, or anything of the sort (it's been over a month), or is ever updated. My third party website is more up to date than the official site *rolls eyes*. Really? I just heard of that song a few days ago, and thought it was a cover of the RATM song. Turns out their version is even worse than if they did a cover of the RATM song. Disturbedmb (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You'd do well to keep your opinions other than the topic off the board, as Wikipedia is not a message board, the video has been released, the single is charting, I'll look into creating the article if I can get around to it. Revrant (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an update on this, the article was a re-direct and full-protected to prevent it from being created again, as back in December/January, there was a lot of things happening to the song article, such as creating it with only a sentence, and calling that ideal. I have had the page un-protected, as the song is now notable enough to create a substantial article, and I have done so. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Maybe what I said was off topic, but you could have said it nicer. TheWeakWilled (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quit whining. 90% of personal attacks here aren't handled, as they are only handled if they become constant and worse. Basically, shrug it off. Nobody cares if you get your feelings hurt. I'm not attacking you here, either, I'm just calling it out. I had a guy attacking me on my talk page, and a couple of different administrators simply told me to suck it up, report it if it becomes too constant. So please, refrain from replies that solely call out a user for a single incident that could have possibly resembled a personal attack. It's not productive, it doesn't prove a point. Also, for the record, Revrant evidently had no ill intentions, anyways; he's got a point. This talk page here is to discuss the article and the article alone, and he was simply keeping that on track. He had commented about a month ago, now, so you would be a lot better off not commenting in cases like this, anyways. So please take what I've said to heart. Thanks. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

I really think something on here should be added about Vandal. The music was recently put on iTunes, and two for the four founding members of Disturbed (Fuzz and Dan), were part of it. Comments? Disturbedmb (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

??????? Are you talking about a song? if so, what the heck is Vandal? It ain't on any of their albums, so I think you might be talking about Criminal. Altenhofen 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, Vandal as in the band. http://www.amazon.com/Better-Days/dp/B0020VL8GM If you look close enough Dan and Fuzz are there (on the right), hidden by the mass of hair. Disturbedmb (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that if it was a predecessor to Disturbed then include it, but if it's a side-project or anything similar then it isn't relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.253.97 (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My question is this: is it verifiable? Just because Dan and Steve were members doesn't mean we're able to write anything substantial with just an album as a source. It tells us nothing except that they participated, which begs the question: how is this notable? According to WP:N, it's probably not. If we were able to dig up a bit more info to provide some more commentary, then perhaps. But I wouldn't chance just adding "Dan and Steve were in a band, Vandal, prior to Disturbed." The info about Brawl is enough. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea but my statement for this whole Vandal thing is that i think Fuzz should buy carrots. The fact is i got gas and i don't know how this concludes Fuzz and Dan to have a side project.--70.240.27.241 (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal was a band that Fuzz and Dan were in before they helped form Disturbed. >__> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssjgoku75x (talk • contribs) 07:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Game tracks

There should be some mention in the article of what tracks have been used in games. I know they got Decadence into Need for Speed Most Wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.169.32 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not notable, far too many to name. It's not worth putting in. --The Guy _complain ^edits 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We could say that Disturbed has some songs in games. Firio (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that would be pointless; come on, name a band who hasn't appeared in video game tracklists. Altenhofen 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean a notable band, but nevertheless your point has been understood. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you understood his point, then why did you post in an attempt to clarify? Anyways, I agree with his sentiment, but I don't believe he has the correct reasons in mind. Put simply, video games and music are not related to one another. If Korn appeared on a Metallica album, that would be notable. If Korn appeared on a video game, though, what's the point in noting it? It's nothing to do with the actual music; it provides no critical or essential commentary or information on the levels of reception, technical production, promotion (with some exceptions), and other levels. In basic terms, it's just trivia. Wikipedia has guidelines against trivia. So it's not so much the population of popular bands on video game soundtracks, but the relationship between said appearances and the songs appearing. That is, it's got to with the fact that there's nothing to say other than "'_____' appeared on Insert Game Title" and Wikipedia requires more than that. The Guy ^(edits) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Because other people might not understand it. For example the band Boyce Avenue could have been named as a band that hasn't appeared in a video game. But since it hasn't become popular/notable, it wouldn't really apply in such a situation in question. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nu Metal

I'm not lookin to restart the genre debate and i think the way the genres are now is good. But i just can't help but wondering if it should be listed as Heavy Metal/Hard Rock/Nu Metal (early). Ten Thousand Fists and Indestructible abandoned pretty much all Nu Metal influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck610 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? The band still performs the songs which were labeled nu metal live. I just don't see the use in updating the list as such with every album. It would be like saying, "They released a hip hop album, they're now solely hip hop, despite previous albums being metal." It doesn't make any sense. The genre is according to genres the band has written in accumulative, not according to any specific timeframe. Therefore, we should let time bar the possibilities. The Guy ^(edits) 20:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Its done on GWAR's page with Hardcore Punk and they still play some of those songs live. I was just wondering if it would be better due to the evolution of the bands sound. As i said it's good the way it is, I was just curious. Duck610 (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The infobox's intent is to aid the lead section in its purpose: to give a quick rundown on the important points of the article before going in-depth on said points. If we wanted to express evolution of the band's sound, we would do so in a section further down in the page, not in the infobox/lead. It would be going too in-depth too early. The Guy ^(edits) 06:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TheGuy. If a few sources were available to say that Disturbed no longer play nu metal, or that only the early releases were played in this style, we could consider doing what you have suggested, however, I have yet to see any sources claiming this and so we cannot use original research to suggest that nu metal is not a style used on later releases. Simple as that. James25402 (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant. I meant that the infobox is simply meant to display information overall, for example, giving a rundown of genres the artist has performed, but not adding the dimension of time to this. The genre in the infobox is not meant to be super reliable, in short. For a reliable examination of the band's genre, we point to the "Style and lyrical themes" section, not the infobox. Too many people take the infobox seriously, and post all detailed information in it, but that's not its purpose. Even with sources, that would be a poor choice. The Guy ^(edits) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's vary hard to find a source saying something isn't something, its a waste of time to write, however there is precious little that calls the post-Sickness albums Nu-Metal. However this was just a suggestion and TheGuys reasoning is fair enough. I'm not interested in debating this further. Duck610 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, once again in terms of this genre, I have, originally unintentionally but it caught my attention, relised that there ARE sources that state explicitly that Disturbed no longer have Nu Metal in there sound. Here are 4, I'm sure more could be found:

http://www.411mania.com/music/album_reviews/822/Disturbed-%E2%80%93-Ten-Thousand-Fists-Review.htm - ("Yes, they are technically nu-metal, but just like a lot of the bands from that era that are still around, they left that tag behind with their 2002 effort Believe.")

http://www.blender.com/guide/new/50905/believe.html - ("The zoological outbursts are gone, and the rap-metal is toned down in favor of Dan Donegan’s aggressive riffing and Draiman’s more melodic vocals.")

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,350620,00.html - ("No nu-metal sounds on Believe, Disturbed's solid second album")

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0nfpxzqjldse~T1 - ("While Indestructible doesn't meddle with the melodic hard-hitting Pantera-inspired formula that fueled its predecessors, the dreaded nu-metal tag that followed the band out of the turn of the century seems wholly eradicated.")

If it is still not favourable to tag Nu Mutel(early) in the info box then this should at least be acknowleged in the 'styles' section and/or in the 'list of nu metal bands'. As I said above, it isn't often that reviewers bother to state a band or album 'is not' something. The fact that I have found 4 saying just that worrents some mention. Ducky610 (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that easily warrants an (early) tag on the article. I haven't seen many reviews call the new material "nu metal" either, so this confirms a suspicion. I'll add it to the infobox. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

James25402, I have just given 4 sources saying just that, don't edit without reading first!!! I'm readding the early tag Ducky610 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Earl Root

Earl Root has nothing to do with this band. Feel free to make an article (provided it is notable and sourced) for his band, but don't include it here. Maybe Disturbed (thrash metal band)? ^TheWeak_Willed 19:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mascot

That would be a cool name though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoobyDooby22 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard that The Guy has a name, Morbus, or "Sickness" in Latin. Can anyone else verify this? Firio (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It was mad up by fans, a hoax. Draiman has confirmed that even he ha never heard of "Morbus". ^TheWeak_Willed 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Metal vs Alt Metal

who keeps changin igt to alt metal??

It was listed hapily as heavy metal, nu metal, hard rock for the longest time.

why do ppl have to restart genre debates over and over agian???

its been debated to death and finnally its left as is, then someone HAS to come along and change it.

1. wats the prblm?? heavy metal is js as well sourced as Alt Metal.

2. the styles section goes deeper into the bands classification. Heavy Metal, Nu Metal, Hard rock is a good summery,what is the need to change it??Ducky610 (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, heavy metal is BETTER sourced than alternative metal. The reason heavy metal is listed is because there are actually several sources for it, unlike alternative metal, which only has one (Allmusic). If people keep changing it, just change it back. It's annoying, but the genres are the way they are because of sources, not because of people's individual points of view, so we can't budge just because a few editors think the band are not heavy metal. James25402 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Morbus???

Previously, the article referred to the Disturbed mascot as "The Guy", but now it's been changed to Morbus. I have seen no evidence to back this up anywhere else, not to mention in the article. Anyone have any evidence of this being the actual name? Axisdenied (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Apperently Draiman when asked about it by a fan said that he'd never heard of the name "Morbus", and that it was fan created. I don't have scources to prove this, but there aren't scources calling The Guy Morbus that aren't fan-made either. WickedKnightAlbel (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Morbus is fake, a hoax crafted by a well known YouTuber. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Disturbed's Fifth Album???

Hey can anybody find out of the amount of songs they will record, because someone on the internet is saying that another cover song is going to be a Metallica song Called: "Disposable Heroes", can anybody confrim that or what i'm confuse?

Also The 4 Additional songs were for Indestructible, might be on this album.

            (Left Out Songs For Indestructible)
             *"Desurction" or some other title 
             *"Mine"
             *"My Insanity"
             *"Empitness"

so yeah check for that too.