Talk:Disturbed (band)

Chart positions

I have noticed that the chart positions are often modified by new users or unregistered users. I do not know if it is vandalism, but I recommend that those positions be checked by a viable source (it shouldn't be too hard to find) in order to prevent what could be vandalism.

Hope this might help the article be better!

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 17:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Still the same. I suggest removing them. Sourcing this would be overkill, and the info seems irrelevant. Any objections? If not, i will remove them in a couple of days. (Or you can do it Zouave if you want :D). - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All done. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the time to fully source the singles chart position table, and have placed it back into the article. -Panser Born- (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well then. I suggest we keep an eye on the edits, and revert any unsourced changes to the positions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 06:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Nu metal? How can Disturbed be considered nu metal? Nu metal differentiates from other metal by incorporating rapping and an electronic/techno sound, like Linkin Park or Slipknot. Disturbed doesn't have either element... They are in absolutely no way nu metal... Just because some people think Disturbed is a bunch of posers or whatever, and that they think nu metal is a bunch of posers too, doesn't mean that they can classify Disturbed as nu metal. What's next? "Oh, well, I think the beatles are nu metal now cuz I don't like them." That's essentially the only argument to classify Disturbed as nu metal.Drew Nutter 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said, I agree. Unfortunately the "genre police" here is very narrowminded and strict lol so you won't have much luck getting through. Dan 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed was nu metal more than everything else in the first, and partially in the later two albums. This has been discussed widely, check the archives. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people, including myself, still consider Disturbed nu metal. Other nu metal bands like System of a Down do not use turntables or rapping, but they still are nu metal. Rockdetector proves this pretty well. Plus, Disturbed has the same fanbase as most nu metal bands. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty weak arguement, alot of fans of Black Sabbath and Deep Purple share a fanbase with Kiss... I spose that Sabbath are Glam now? - Chairman Smith

How can they be considered Nu Metal or even Alternative Metal when they cite themselves as hard rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.224.84 (talk • contribs)

What they call themselves (which has been other things than hard rock too, by the way) is irrelevant. Edits reverted. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Music's just music. If it sounds good to you then it's good music from at least one person's point of view. There are too many sub-genres of music these days. Especially Rock and Metal. Let's just stick to liking what we like and ignoring what we don't, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.107.84 (talk • contribs)

Having a genre for a band is a great way to find similar bands that you may also like Deathwish238 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I too was confused to see them classified as nu metal. I've always called them hard rock more than anything else...this goes for all of their albums Deathwish238 02:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently people disagree with them beinc classified as "hard rock" or even "heavy metal". Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

they are nu metal...DarkMessiah AKA Necris 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

gee, is there an academy of the painfully obvious nearby? disturbed is 100% nu metal. incorporating techno affects with the guitar, adding in rapping from david draiman, 100% nu metal. don't even try to tell me that his rapping is "screaming". only occassionally, but usually, it's just plain rapping, sorry if you thought that you were a true metalhead for listening to disturbed. Itachi1452 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ^^ Finally some people I agree with! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While i agree with most of what you are saying (see archives) - calling Disturbed 100% nu metal proves you are not too knowledgeable about the subject. In any case however, i would wish that this topic would finally stay untouched for a couple of weeks so it can be buried in the archive. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahahah yeah, so do I. I think the article's description of Disturbed's genre is pretty good as of now. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph should state them as a hard rock band. Alt. metal is clearly one of their genres and that's fine, but they're more hard rock than anything nowadays, as David Draiman himself says. Nu-metal is also one of their genres, I agree. James25402 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What Draiman says is irrelevant. And yes, Disturbed does SO sound like ACDC or the Stones.... ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with twsx. I could form a rap group and claim to play brutal death metal. We often see bands trying to label themselves with new genre names (HIM claim to be Love metal, Rhapsody of Fire claim to be Hollywood metal, and another band which I proposed to deletion on the French Wikipedia claimed to be "Alternative Power Black Death Gothic Doom Metal with punk influences"). Whatever they label themselves as, it doesn't change their genre. In fact, I think to make it more undisputable we should put "Disturbed is a rock band" since it's pretty much unquestionable that they are part of the rock genre (whether metal or not). It's just an idea, I don't necessarily plan on applying it unless other people agree. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well put, i'll make a paragraph to propose so, see below. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously their music can be classified in several categories, but there should at least be one reference per category. I think it is okay to classify the music any way that it can be sourced. Frog47 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

change headline to "is a rock band"

In desperation to give the genre pickering a rest; As brought up in the discussion right above this one, i propose to follow Zouave's idea and change the headline to "Disturbed is a rock band ....". Opinions please, will change in a couple of days if noone disagrees. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can go along with that, although you just KNOW some idiots will come along and be like "they're not rock! they're metal!", even though though in this case it is irrelevant as metal is a form of rock music. James25402 02:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to solve once and for all the debate for the headline. It is undisputable that Disturbed is part of the rock genre, and therefore putting a factually correct and undisputed genre in the headline can only give the reader a vague yet unbiased account. The rest of the article goes into more detail concerning the genre, which gives the reader more specific elements concerning the genre debate. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 06:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one really opposes this proposition. Should we wait some more or should we apply it to the article? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.

why

Why are all the pictures being deleted?GuyDoe 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason why that person speedy's all the images is most likely because he doesn't like the band. Nevertheless, he is right, the images are poorly described and meet the criteria to be deleted. I don't care enough right now as i am too busy, but if someone finds the time to gather sources and info to have them be kept, do it. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite a large fan of the band. =) Anyway, the reason the images are up for speedy deletion is described on their image page. -Panser Born- (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now here is another question: why are the pictures still here today, 6 days after the deadline? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 17:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because there's a hideous backlog of images waiting to be deleted, and there's only so many administrators that devote time to deleting them. -Panser Born- (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we comment out the pictures, since they're deleteable? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to, and this is one of your most rediculous approaches ever, Zouave. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I think it looks very cheap on the article to see under each image "this image is a candidate for speedy deletion"... Oh, and you mean "ridiculous", right? I know I can be stupid sometimes, I'm sorry. :p Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 23:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

col

I like whut youve done with the article but the link to john moyers page gos to a very unwikipedia qulity article about a comedian. this needs to be fixed and the article about the comedian like destrored cuz' its not in the right format. and if you are going to keep disturbed on a alt metal you need to remove them from the nu metal article.GuyDoe 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

True, I don't know what happened to the article. Disturbed can be on both alt metal and nu metal, it doesn't have to be in "only one category". Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 09:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted the whole article and used it for this comedian. Reverted. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

col. sry for being a prick before.GuyDoe 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i think i saw that the new album waz due in dec. GuyDoe 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

TV shows

I feel a lot like deleting that section. Anyone to disagree? Reason is, it is completely redundant. I'm sure it has been in even way more TV shows than are listed, even if it was only for a moment in a scene. But what does it matter? In a TV show, you often get to hear numberous music tracks in just one episode, just as some kind of "background" to the scene, or even less than that. It has no value to the article or the band whatsoever. Asdf! ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah. It's just information relating to a band, mate so it's neither here nor there whether you delete it or not. Anyway, there's probably a few fans that would be delighted with any reference to their favourite artists. I'm sure you know what people can be like with their favourite "thing". Just look at Trekkies. No offence to any Trekkies, mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.107.84 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for not signing that last post dude. I'm kind of new here. Didn't think it mattered that much. IronHead42 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to propose this, then realised you'd already done so. =) I think it should be deleted as well – it's just excess non-notable information. Not to mention the fact that it's completely unreferenced. -Panser Born- (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My GOD, since when has info like that been irrelevant? A LOT of bands on Wikipedia have those sections. There's a reason for that, since it shows that the band is popular enough for their songs to be used somehow. Are we supposed to say that such people never USED the music? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpower (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

it's not that notable pretty much any band on a major label that's sold more than 250,000 albums is going to have their merch worm its way into visual media. also the argument of "several other wikipedia pages have similar lists" is not a good one. just because all of those articles have them, doesn't mean that they should, and i've seen a couple articles where the lists got pulled cuz really, it doesn't have anything to do with the band.68.255.173.144 12:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

2 user votes for, 1 anonymous vote against. Any more? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 08:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to achieve any kind of consensus - the list appears to be against WP:UNENC anyway. -Panser Born- (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, it is settled then. Removed the list. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I created this section and I was very proud of it. If you feel that it is not contributing to the article, go fuck yourself I'm fine with you deleting it. 81.230.100.100 15:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

grammer

Hi it's me again. just readin though and the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph says the band started music as a weopon. shouldn't it be then the band started ect.GuyDoe 21:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

there are a lot of mistakes in the article, did someone rewrite it? GuyDoe 21:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You could fix the grammar yourself. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing that out. If you notice any other problems, feel free to correct them. =) -Panser Born- (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't trust my grammer skills enough to fix most of them but the simple stuff is cool.GuyDoe 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

i was pooking around and i changed some things (your welcome...j/k) but agian i found something in the third para, its the first sentance. its a dependant clayse or sentance or whatever it needs something added to it basiclly. since i only really can help grammerwise this is out of my league.hope this helpsGuyDoe 13:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Disturbed - The Sickness.jpg

Image:Disturbed - The Sickness.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Where in the blue blazes did the pictures go? There were two pictures here at one time, one main picture, and one of the band live, where did they go and why, after so much time, have they not been replaced?--Revrant 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominated them for deletion because they had no fair use rationale. Presumably they haven't been replaced because no one has found a free image of them yet. -Panser Born- (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's just wonderful, I'd give the effort but even legitimate rationale probably wouldn't do it, as seen in the above comment, I suppose one would have to take the pictures themselves or find freely available promotional shots...Oddly enough, the exact kind that was once their main picture.Revrant 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

awards

i don't know if you guys watch spike tv but there is this new show/awards cereimony that is featureing disturbed. the show is guys choice and the catigory is ballsyest band. its disturbed vs. lamb of god. i have more info i wanted to check with u guys first before i put it into the article.GuyDoe 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted the update, but someone deleted it. I don't see why. 25,000 people voted on it/ it was broadcast internationally/ The band itself accepted live/ they discussed dedicating to members of the military and major newspapers deemed it worthy to cover. I think it should be re=added Frog47 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. First, because it's not an award? Merely a meaningless title given by a random show. For that matter, best it deserves would be a sidenote. Secondly, it's importance sums up to zero? If you we're able to find good and strong references, probably, but you did not. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that the award is not that important, it still does deserve some sort of mention. References shouldn't be too hard to find, couldn't you just go to the show's website? Dan 18:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The small section is without any meaning, and the award seems to be totally worthless. No reliable source telling otherwise is given. Bring up something, or i will remove it in a couple of days, and take it to WP:AN if needed. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The award is not without meaning; if nothing else the fact that Disturbed won an international poll is notable. Further, a simple google search of Spike TV Guys choice awards brings up many refs. The band itself thought it worthy enough that they all showed up to accept it, then dedicated it to another group of people. Viacom, which owns Spike TV also owns MTV and puts on the MTV music awards and MTV movie awards. The Mtv awards are sourced all through wikipedia. Frog47 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

References

This entire article needs sourcing. I've gone through and marked specific unmarked claims and will begin sourcing them one by one shortly. Frog47 15:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are totally unnecessary, but why not, although the article now has more citations than one of a contested politician or similar. Fixed most of them. PS: You may want to read up on how to properly use, and respond on talkpages. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

start class?

if this is a part of wiki project metal then should't it say so in the top of this page? just wondering. and just for the record i think the mantlers/award should be in the articleGuyDoe 02:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does say so at the top of this page. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 05:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ohh sry didnt see thatGuyDoe 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)