Talk:System of a Down/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Genre Sources

List em here:

Alt Metal, Hard Rock, Nu Metal, Prog Metal -

Alt Metal, Nu Metal - ( mirrors the allmusic review)

Metal, Prog Rock -

Metal, Prog Rock - Jim Dero (Chicago sun-times music critic)

Metal, Prog Rock, Hard Rock -

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

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 I do not agree that any previous discussion is no longer valid following this latest series of posts and the ongoing edit war over a subject that should have been put to rest a long time ago.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

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

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

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

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

  • In that case, the old consensus should work better for you. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC))
I'm not sure what the old consensus is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"Rock, heavy metal, experimental". Since you asked for the inclusion of "metal", this should satisfy you. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC))
Progressive metal. Besides, I hardly see how you have the right to change the consensus (To an old one that has since been vetoed by the new one) yet you tell me when I make a change, which is agreed on by more editors, that I'm against consensus. You're very inconsistent. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what satisfies the majority of the editors. I'm not editing against consensus, as you have chosen to do. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
Once again, if I'm not getting provided sources (Don't care about opinions really, nor the consensus made by long-gone members months ago), then I'm changing the genres to reflect the sources that are available. I'm not sitting around waiting for the bot to archive this because nobody responds. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Sources have been provided. You ignored them. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
No you haven't! Please copy and paste the quote of yourself providing the sources, because I certainly can't see it above anywhere. Passing mention has been provided, no links to the so called "previous consensus" have been provided, and you have made NO attempt to do as I have at the top of this section (Listing sources with the genres mentioned explicitly in those sources). You are being a mule with this and I'm not going to sit around and wait because you have decided that you are the consensus. Answering my requests with "I have and you ignored them" when you most clearly have no provided anything besides your opinion (which I really couldn't care less about) is going to make me take this to ANI. Provide sources, or I will make the changes, period. If you continue to buck, I will seek outside intervention. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
That discussion goes through about 15 different options, but falls equally upon the argument that the genres in the infobox should reflect the sources best. Its funny because looking through several diffs in there, I can see that you also advocated progressive metal (however I can also see that at times you were rather uncommunicative). Checking every source on that page, I can only add several for nu metal, and 5 or 6 that discredit nu metal. In addition, I found a source from Rolling Stone that calls them Progressive Metal. I will take a more thurough look through and list every genre from every source mentioned in archives 3 and 4. The most heavily sourced genres will go into the infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I advocated progressive metal because it was better sourced than nu metal. I don't think that SOAD is a band that can be clearly defined by terms used by random reporters who don't know what they're talking about. I think that having the infobox be less descriptive in its inclusion of genres works better. SOAD, much like Zappa, performs fusions of various genres. The generality rule applies here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
Generality isn't a rule or a guideline. Merely a choice taken by some editors who'd rather provide less information than to sit down and have the sourced genres listed. I very much agree that reporters know nothing about the music they report on more often than not, and as such I base the genres I choose on the styles and influences of the music. Zappa is very much a progressive musician too (If you actually look at progressive music, experimental (Art Rock) is one of the genres it DABs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC) lolwut, wharr's da soad? (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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


Here is the official list. Tally at the bottom

Alt Metal, Nu Metal, Metal - ( mirrors the allmusic review)

Metal, Prog Rock -

Metal, Prog Rock, minus one to nu metal - Jim Dero (Chicago sun-times music critic)

Metal, Prog Rock, Hard Rock -

Experimental, metal (unspecific), minus one to nu-metal -

Metal, mentions progressive and experimental nature ("Where the music is concerned, SAOD is adept at odd metre changes, vocal harmonies and employing dynamics in the most unbelievable manner.") -

Heavy Metal (passing mention), Nu Metal - "System of a Down have completely cast off the nu-metal tag in recent years", meaning they were nu metal, but aren't in recent years, likely referring to Mesmerize and Hypnotize since the article is from 2005.

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, great to see that you follow the wikipedian policy to the smallest detail. Did the reviewer say quasi-hard-art-prog-metalrock or quasi-lapi-loopa-dream pop/introvert world muzak?

First off, the genre box looks great; extensive, clare genres. But I don't understand what Hard rock does there, because the genre itself is merely a lighter version of metal, and SOAD is a metal band, hence Alternative metal. Hard rock is a filler and completely unnecessary; a very unnecessary nuance and misleading, considering their sound. I would rather have Art rock, due to Mezmerize/Hypnotize. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is that both metal and hard rock are heavily sourced. I think they meld the two indistinguishably, as they lie right upon that fine line between the two. As a compromise and to summarize the multitude of sources, both Alternative Metal and Hard Rock were used. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The famous wikipedian tunnel-visioned policy ramble. Yeah, both are used because they are heavily sourced, I get it. What, would excluding a source because of its superfluous, completely unnecessary, bullshit nature be such a stab at you guys' fragile sensibilities? I very much guess so. Sure, let wikipedia remain the bullshit-spreading virus that it is. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right. We should all have a know-it-all complex instead. Thanks for the push in the right direction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Radical Views?

It is unfair to say in the introduction on this page that their veiws are radical. The music was made in a time when the US government was fear mongering and pushing the nation to great lengths of Xenophobia to promote war and corporate interests at the cost of MANY lives.

Their message is peace, not war/ question authority. How is that RADICAL? Why dont you people fix an obvious mistake like that then bicker over the genre of music. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lyric sample from "P.L.U.C.K.": "Revolution, the only solution, The armed response of an entire nation, Revolution, the only solution, We've taken all your shit, now it's time for restitution.". I'd call that pretty fucking radical and not a result of one president causing an all-time low nation-wide morale. Their view is based on a vaster dynamic; get some fucking awareness, guys. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


The info on their discography page says that both Mezmerize and Hypnotize are platinum in the US. The thing is, they both became platinum within weeks after their releases, so I'm pretty sure they are more than that now, 5 years after their releases, unless the world went in a sudden boycott after the platinum certifications. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


It's almost correct, they do play every genre that is written, but they also played art rock in their early days. Check out the albums' pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AwesomeUsername555 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed all the albums to reflect this consensus about a week ago.--SKATER Speak. 20:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You, whoever wrote the first comment, are so far out wrong that I almost faint. They don't play every genre that is written, that genre being hard rock. And though I agree with your remark that they play art rock, they haven't done it on all their albums, and especially not their early ones. I'd call Mezmerize/Hypnotize art rock, and maybe Toxicity and Steal This Album, but not SOAD.

The second guy channelling wikipedia policy isn't even worth acknowledgement. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

We should add "heavy metal" and "alternative rock" to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

SOAD never not played progressive rock.--Mmlov (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure they have. Their songs progress rather than following a standard verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structure, their albums make regular use of leit motifs, complex arrangements, irregular time signatures, dynamic ranges (quiet then loud), cryptic lyrics / lyrical themes, and probably many more features common to progressive music. Progressive music doesn't always mean music that sounds like Genesis or Pink Floyd. Besides, several noted critics have labelled them as such and that's what we've gone by. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 19:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The site, although a questionable Reliable Source to begin with, has closed down, time to remove the refs with it and go search hunting. I'll start clearing them out in a bit.--SKATER Speak. 00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

SOAD IS METAL - NOT ROCK. To say they are a rock band is borderline insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwjohnd07 (talkcontribs) 02:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The line between hard rock and heavy metal is iffy at best. Since they are often categorized as alternative rock, and since they have many softer songs, rock is a general cover-all that includes metal. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


As with many other artists, the demo tapes are not listed in their discography, but I looked at Khachaturian's page on Wikipedia and found the system tapes listed. Should we consider adding the demo tapes to this page, as well as many other pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightSamus (talkcontribs) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What about "Storaged Melodies" (2003)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia use what the artists title the album and tracks, or what is proper grammar?

Because then I think the debut album should be "System Of A Down," as opposed to "System of a Down."

We use the spelling as it appears on the album copyright notice generally, as that is the official title with the capitalization as intended. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, we use WP:MOS, which means the title is quite definitely System of a Down. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree that the album according to the WP:MOS is "System of a Down" but what about the band name itself? See k.d. lang and their much debated capitalization argument. I'm surprised to not find one going on here. This has been a major internal debate for me in my own curating of my iTunes library (see, I just did it again, for Apple). But that might just prove what a capitalization dork I am. Casting-off (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

System is not releasing an album called Disease

Don't believe everything you read on the internet kids.[1] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional Members

Arto Tunçboyacıyan and Harry Perry are not band members. Arto has made a few minor contributions to Toxicity and Steal This Album. Harry Perry is even less involved having not featured on any of Systems albums to date and made a few live appearances during ozzfest (2006?). I think Arto should definitely be recognised for his contrubutions to the albums but is far from being a band member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, not sure about arto, but harry perry performed live with soad on 1 occasion and was in a music video. this does not make him a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

'First paragraph' genre

Hi everyone, I've seen there has been a lot of buzzing about SOAD's musical genres, but never seen some kind of "final" answer... I recently realized that there's kind of an edit war running about the first paragraph genre where it reads "System of a Down ... is an Armenian-American *genre* band from Southern California...". Can we decide something and stick with that? IMO the single definition that best describes the group in its whole career is alternative metal, let know ;) WikiKiwi (askme) 02:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be Heavy Metal, as a genre and not subgenre because SOAD doesn't have a one steady genre. Pilmccartney (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion

Instead of writing all these things here, why don't we open a whole article for the System of a Down reunion? There will be all the rumors and stuff... Just an idea. What d'you say? Pilmccartney (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


I'm not a native english speaker, that's why I'm asking anyone who are to say about SOAD unique style of singing in chorus. (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't do that but I second the idea! --WikiKiwi (askme) 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the vocal harmonies? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Bad Acid Trip Associated Act?

I was looking for some sort of permission before adding Bad Acid Trip to the associated acts. Bad Acid Trip for those of you that don't know is a crossover thrash/grindcore band that met SoaD when both bands were underground and both bands have been major influences into each other. Aslo BAT's album Lynch The Weirdo was released through Serj's label Serjical Strike and was produced by Daron Malakian. I would be able to provide verifiable links to all the stated info I just didn't want to post something that would instintly be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRunyon123 (talkcontribs) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)



You can't make proof. When it actually happens and somebody reliably reports on it, then the article will be updated. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
FLOYDIAN BRO YOU WRITE IN A BORING WAY!!!!!!!1!!!11! (just joking :P) --WikiKiwi (askme) 03:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
With regards to SOAD playing in Paris June 2011....The only "source" is a french radio DJ (not the most reliable source...he's as reliable as Howard Stern just writing it in his blog with no proof), who has nothing to back up his claim (not even an interview). If this were true, the venue's website would reflect such, as well as Shavo, Daron, John and Serj's personal twitter accounts...or ANYTHING. Every "source" I have been able to find, quote the radio DJ as the source...this may just be one idiot looking for attention, unless ANY proof can be brought forward, it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
It is certainly true that the rumors are flying thanks to John saying so in an interview... But until there is a news release or the band themselves confirm it, we can only call it a rumour. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw this today. I think maybe we should consider adding some info about them getting back together --Ajgajg1134 17:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajgajg1134 (talkcontribs)

I've removed it several times. Though this is indeed a reliable source speculating at their upcoming reunion, it is still just speculation, no matter how reliable the publisher of that speculation is. Just as we would not have changed the Michael Jackson page when TMZ announced his death (TMZ is reliable, but their speculation is as reliable as speculation can be), we shouldn't adjust this page until there is some solid ground to build on.
In short, there have been rumours since 2006. This is nothing new. It's likely, but we don't know that, do we? Let's wait until Monday. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Theres a source here that states they are returing for at least one date in france -- , it still includes only speculation of a larger reunion but it does seem to think one date is set in stone Dims25 (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

the band's site says they will be playing some dates together. I think that counts as back together? They also said something about it on their facebook page. just thought I'd throw that out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now according to the Download Festival website, SOAD have now been announced as a headlining act for the 2011 Festival —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did all the hiatus stuff go?

It had everything in it. What the band members were doing during the hiatus and how they think about System's situation. I do not see any reason why anyone would want to delete that? revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP user and a user remove them. 1, 2, 3. I will restore them when the full protection expires. --Neo139 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SOAD in Provinssirock, Finland, summer 2011

Finnish Provinssirock festival has announced that SOAD will be their main performer summer 2011: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasantal (talkcontribs) 09:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SOAD playing European Festivals in 2011

6/2/11 - Italy, Milan, Milan Fiera Arena (on-sale Dec 1 @ 10am)

6/4/11 - Germany, Nurnberg, Rock im Park (AVAILABLE NOW)

6/5/11 - Germany, Nurburgring, Rock am Ring (AVAILABLE NOW)

6/6/11 - France, Paris, Omnisports de Bercy (on-sale Dec 14 @ 10am)

6/9/11 - Switzerland, Interlaken, Greenfield Festival (on-sale Dec 1 @ 10am)

6/11/11 - UK, Castle Donington, Download Festival (on-sale Dec 3 @ 9am)

6/13/11 - Austria, Nickelsdorf, Novarock (AVAILABLE NOW)

6/15/11 - Germany, Berlin, Wuhlheide (on-sale Dec 1 @ 9am)

6/17/11 - Sweden, Gothenburg, Metaltown Festival (on-sale Dec 2 @ 9am)

6/19/11 - Finland, Turku, Provinssirock (on-sale Dec 1 @ 9am) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrzippyuk (talkcontribs) 12:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of the protection already, they're officially back!

This is ridiculous, who's responsible for the great idea of protecting the article on the day they announce they're back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not a news site. I'm sure life will move on. It was protected thanks to all the wonderful contributions of anonymous editors who just couldn't wait and had to keep posting the rumours over and over again. The page will be unprotected soon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm responsible for the great idea. --Neo139 (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


I guess Floydian, as any other ambitious wikipedia editor, doesn't want to acknowledge facts when he's been countering them.

All in all, this article is very short. I just saw the discussion page on Tori Amos' article, which has been shortened down a lot from so called "deadwood". I compare Tool's and System's articles and see that Tool's article holds as much information as Tori's did before, while System's very small compared to their status as a band; they're bigger than Tool. I'm not saying that wikipedia editors that look after articles don't contradict each other, acting like Jimmy Wales-worshippers, twisting what all this is really about, but there should be some balance. More on Soad or less on Tool? Revan ltrl (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think there are people in the world who take time to ensure that the article on Tool contains more words than the article on System of a Down? The problem is that I'm not heavily invested in the biography of the band, I'm invested in protecting the page from vandalism. If someone can find a good biography (a book preferably), then I'm sure a very in-depth biography could be written.
As it stands though, there is far more reliably sourced material on Tori Amos (who as a very recognized and talented virtuoso pianist, has obviously got a large following). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I like how you introduce your post with a smiley. And why the epic scope of your first question? Well, Floydian, if you think that it's a problem that you're not well-oriented with SOAD's biography, it's yours to solve; I didn't imply anything like that. I'm just mentioning a lack of balance in different similar articles. Why should Tori's article be shortened down while Tool's includes pictures from their first music video and quotes thereon. The lack of symmetry together with the bombardment of opposition from every wiki editor is just a tad ridiculous. Revan ltrl (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're patronizing me or not (it seems to be that way), but making this article good is not my responsibility. Anyone can edit the encyclopedia and introduce referenced facts, including you! As a biography of living persons, the sourcing requirement is strict. I don't see any discussion for shortening Tori's page (which is a B class article); Tool is a featured article, and so both this article and the Tori Amos article should be drawing from it. Regardless, WP:TRIVIA discourages unorganized tidbits in articles. Deadwood is aptly named.
My main area of interest is civil engineering and highways. I have no interest in the history of System of a Down, but some of their songs are good. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That sounds very interesting. Good luck with that. Revan (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes enabled

I've requested and been granted the request to have pending changes enabled to help stem the recent influx of IP negligence. Live changes will not appear to users that are not logged in until a reviewer approves of the changes. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Storaged Melodies

Why is there a redirect from "storaged melodies"? It is mentioned nowhere in the article. (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the name of a System of a Down bootleg.Supahshadow (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Years Active

The years active says "-2006, 2011." They never broke up, they just took a break. Sbrianhicks (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

True, it was only a hiatus. However from 2005–2010 the band wasn't active. The members weren't touring or recording under the name System of a Down. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This seems a bit hair splitting to me - the band is currently actice and although they were inactive it seems a bit pointy - I has as such accepted a review edit to replace -present. but am not really fussed if its reverted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have. Although users can argue as much as they want as to the official status of the band, they had no activity between 2007 and 2010 inclusive. I'm not really sure why others have taken to changing it so much, but I personally prefer the accurate statistics to generalities. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Limp Bizkit stopped recording and touring for several years, then recently reunited, but they didn't break up, so the timeline isn't broken into "recording/touring" and "non active" periods. This shouldn't be the case here, either. Unless a band officially breaks up, it shouldn't list the timeline like this. WTF (talk) 08:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the term "years active" is pretty clear. If the band was on hiatus, they weren't active. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 10:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


I happen to basically agree with SOAD's stand on the issues of the Armenian Genocide and the War on Terror, but wouldn't it be better to have the introductory paragraph say "concerning" rather than "confronting"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Loisalene, 16 July 2011

Please remove the following statement in this wiki: The band's musical style has often been compared to that of Zappa.(footnotes 27 and 36)

The actual statement is "tread close to Frank Zappa territory."(footnote 27)

Footnote 36 is 404.

(No Zappa[FZ] fan or fan of SOAD would say that they are anything alike except that they both use/used words that are socially unacceptable to say on the air and both were socially conscious. I am a fan of both and I object to this statement as it cheapens and does not reflect the musical styling of either party. FZ was meticulous in his music, playing from an orchestral score and conducting his sometimes 12 piece group as if it were an orchestra; SOAD is very much spontaneous and non-scripted and non-conducted in its live appearances. FZ was a master of satire; SOAD does not lampoon but chastise. FZ wrote all of his music and lyrics; SOAD is a collaborative effort. I will go on if requested [].)

Loisalene (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)  Done - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Soil lineup

Is the soil lineup section really necessary? Rsage (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


The band's major influences also include Pink Floyd. This can be seen at many points in their history. 1)During the Big Day Out festival where they performed, they also performed 'Good Bye, Blue Skies' which is actually a song by Pink Floyd. 2)In the video of 'Lonely Day', Shavo can be seen drawing some Pink Floyd artwork. 3)There are definitely more citations but I must be unaware of it.

TejaswinG (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be an opinion, you need third party Reliable Sources to add this into an article.--SKATER Is Back 13:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

are they a christian rock band(i ask this because one of them has a necklace with a cross and the lyrics in chop suey "i cry when angels deserve to die) and i didn't know were else to ask this lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


In the middle of the Aerials track on Toxicity, there's what sounds to me like a duduk. Is it, who plays it, and why isn't it acknowledged? Peridon (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Avant-garde metal

I think it would be easier to classify them as Avant-garde metal than experimental .Diogo t. alvim —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC).

It's based a tally of the sources in the Styles and Influences section. The big discussion is up towards the top of the talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well their is two sources for experimental rock, one source for experimental metal/avant garde metal and no sources for experimental, therefore due to the weight of sources experimental rock should be the genre in the infobox not "experimental" which System of a Down is not. Please stop re-adding it. I call the big one bitey 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nu metal

There is an ongoing genre-warring related to the above mentioned genre in this article (wich reveals a lack of consensus, thing that i confirmed after revise the talk page) I made a research, and i found many sources (some better known than others, and in various languages) describing System of a Down as Nu metal, here is some from the lots that i found:
-Reverbnation: Alternative / Progressive Metal / nu- metal.[2]
-Spirit of metal: Band's list > Nu Metal > System Of A Down.[3]
-Poiskm (Russian): Жанры(Genres): metal, alternative metal, rock, Nu Metal, alternative, hard rock, alternative rock, System of a Down, Nu-metal, political, heavy metal
-Metalunderground: "Reunited nu-metal act System Of A Down has revealed that it wants its fans to choose the setlist for a large portion of its upcoming reunion tour dates."[4] "...the press to describe them with several different genre handles, among them alternative metal, hard rock, nu metal and progressive metal."[5]
-Zonemetal (French): Neo Metal.[6]
-allmusic (Review for "Mezmerize"): Nu metal.[7]
-Suite101 (Spanish): mentioned in the "second wave of nu metal" section and also in the "best nu metal albums" section.[8]
-allmusic (review for "Steal This Album"): Nu metal.[9]

Stylus magazine also ranked System of a Down as the second best nu metal band ever and awarded their song "Toxicity" as their "Nu-metal classic".[10]

I will put "nu metal" in the infobox due an overwhelming amount of sources, if i'm missing something, let me know. Nicrorus (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the extensive debate we had 2 years ago where many sources were compared. Many sources also discount the nu metal label that they have been given, and that was weighed against the number of sources for other genres. Also, allmusic is considered reliable for reviews, but not for genre choices. You'll need to gain consensus (ie leave this up for a couple weeks) before changing the genres in the infobox. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SOAD are not Nu-metal, they just happened to get popular during the Nu-metal era, they are very much an Alternative metal/rock band. calling them Nu-metal is like calling the Smashing Pumpkins Grunge just because they came about in the early 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


The article reads: "...but announced a reunion on November 29, 2010 following a worldwide tour in 2011." I think this should be "followed by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I've cleaned up that whole sentence. ~ mazca talk 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

SOAD is a Nu Metal band?? or what

Of course, according to Polish, Russian or Italian wikipedia articles there's written in genres section that this is nu metal band, but i know that you're still discussing it. -- (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia and other wikis, ironically, are not considered reliable sources. – Richard BB 00:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
They're classed as numerous things, but a lot of people, including the band members, discount the nu metal label. The infobox can only hold so much, but its definitely mentioned in the Styles and influences section. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In everywhere but the english wikipedia, SOAD is seen as a nu metal band, some months ago, i made a quick search and i found like eighteen sources describing them as a nu metal band, of wich i posted 9 or something near that, i guess that would tilt the weight balance in favor of nu metal, however i think genre warring is silly and i don't want to ruin floydian's day. It's also abhorrent that editors that keeps the nu metal tag away of this article insists in keep the same tag in other band's articles. Nicrorus (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely trying to uphold the previous consensus until a better weigh in can be conducted, observing the weighting of all genres. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, that kind of biased behavior is the one that gives Wikipedia it's good reputation. Nicrorus (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, this kind of behaviour is what keeps Wikipedia stable, and not in a consistent state of flux due to petty warring over genres. When several reliable sources say nu metal, but several say "definitely not nu metal", or "falsely labelled as nu metal", they discount one another's weight. We can't list every genre that is mentioned in the Styles and Influences section, and so the current consensus that was arrived at by several editors and using over 30 sources attempts to express every style possible. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

System of a Down - What it means?

לאפו (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This (and the bit of the article that mentions it) may answer your question. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nu metal or not?

"A common debate amongst System fans and heavy metal fans in general, is the topic of the band's genre: Are they nu metal (a term which to some people brings negative connotations) or is their music easier described as simply heavy metal?

It is argued by some that System of a Down rarely feature guitar solos and have typical nu metal song structure (verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus), and thus should be considered a nu metal band.

These arguments are also counteracted by the fact that they have not included rap in any of their songs, a typical, if not defining, characteristic of nu metal, but instead use occasional screams and growls that are typical of death metal. Another typical component of nu metal, the turntable, is not part of the band's instrumentation.

System of a Down have been labelled as nu metal by fans and media since their incarnation. This can be attributed to the release of their first album, which occured during the nu metal boom of the mid-to-late 90's. Adding to this, the band toured with Ozzfest, a festival that is typically features many up and coming nu metal bands.

Guitarist Daron Malakian was quoted in the magazine Guitar World as saying that he was glad that System of a Down had not slipped into the nu metal genre."


Even Daron Malakian of System of a down rejects the nu metal label and heavy metal label. [2]

TheMetallican 21:35, 5 May 2012 talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talkcontribs)

The lack of turn-tables or hip-hop influence is pretty concrete in making them NOT nu metal. Contrast with Korn, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, etc. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with User:Floydian, System of a Down is definitely not nu metal, and I still don't know why it is present there : List of nu metal bands (reverting it without consensus would be vandalism). To all those who doubt about the fact that System is NOT nu metal, I would tell them that this genre is nothing more than a subgenre of alternative metal (which is present on the Infobox). Nu metal is based on a fusion between heavy metal and other genres such as hip hop or grunge. Nu metal pioneers' (Slipknot, Korn , Linkin Park, Staind and Limp Bizkit) music differs from System of a Down's as I haven't ever heard any kind of hip hop or rapping in their songs. Moreover, "the lyrics of many nu metal bands focus on pain and personal alienation rather than the themes of other metal subgenres", in opposition to System of a Down lyrics' which are oblique, committed and generally have another meaning that it may seem. So, I believe that alternative metal defines System of a Down with enough precision, even though I think that the band's real genre has not been heard anywhere else yet... Have a nice day. Bright Darkness (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, nu metal has not one, but two sources in the article. – Richard BB 22:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not good enough. We are weighing the value of the sources, not simply counting them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Floydian, for removing it. Bright Darkness (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Broken Toxicity Link

It seems like this article is locked for some reason. Could an admin fix one of the Toxicity links in the article so it links to the album article, and not to the article on the generic topic toxicity? The broken link is in the demo tapes section.

Supervegeta37 (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for the pointer. Just for your info, the article is only semi-protected, which means only users with very recently-created accounts or very low number of edits are prevented from editing it - once you reach 10 edits you should no longer have the problem. ~ mazca talk 14:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to change anything but surely "Andranik" is a more accurate transliteration, properly relating the name to the various other versions of Andrew, Andre etc. (1994-7 period, 1st paragraph), unless there is a specific reason to write "Ontronik".SBader (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Andranik is probably a more common transliteration, yea, but the fact is that he himself uses Ontronik [11]- solo stuff he does seems to be under the stylization OnTroniK. It's his name, I guess he can transliterate however he likes. ~ mazca talk 11:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I thought there must be a reason. Thanks for explaining. How do I get this whole thing off, save precious space? Do it please if you can.SBader (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede changes and MOS changes by BlackMetalBaz and GunMetalAngel

BlackMetalBaz and GunMetalAngel have repeatedly removed the article's lede sentence without discussion. This sentence has existed almost as long as the article, and has essentially remained unchanged for over 5 years[12]. Poor arguments are used in each case in the edit summary (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "totally unnecessary" and "totally pointless"). Unless you can provide an actual valid reason and not WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, stop removing the alternative and very common names for the band.

Secondly, BlackMetalBaz removed the periods from B.Y.O.B., ambiguously linking to the entire manual of style. The relevant style guideline (MOS:ABBR) states in its intro "If a guideline conflicts with the correct usage of a proper name, ignore it."; B.Y.O.B. is a song title and thus a proper noun. The guideline goes on to say (in the Full stops section) that periods are acceptable within the acronym, so long as that acronym is interlaced with periods consistently through the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

GunMetalAngel was just indefinitely blocked for making mass undiscussed changes, unsourced edits and edit warring—largely pertaining to band genres. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

New photo

All regular contributors to this article must have noticed that the actual main photo is from the 2005 Download Festival. How about changing it to a more recent one ? I have found two of them that may be interesting and appropriate to become the article's main photography. By the way, both of them were taken in Santiago, Chile, on October 7, 2011, during the System of a Down Reunion Tour. Best regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

i have a question

If there are sources/websites naming the band as nu metal. So why are you shy to add it to genres. You can be shy to a girl, but to a sources??? WTF Hilarious -- (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Who said shy? Over a dozen genres are attributed to SOAD by numerous sources; they are provided in the Styles and Influences section. The infobox summarizes the article, and through weighing the number and the value of sources and coming to a consensus, we picked a limited number of genres to summarize the style of of the band... System lacks the rap/hip hop/turntable integration that makes nu metal distinct from punk or thrash or groove metal. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
There are some nu metal bands that don't use turntables or have small or no hiphop influence for example KoЯn or Drowning Pool -- (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I also don't follow what you are talking about. Who's being shy? It's mentioned in the influences section. It's just not necessarily one of the main genre/styles they are attributed to, so it's not in the infobox. Not everything thing needs to be included in there, that's one of the reasons why they make "musical style" type subsections... Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also KoЯn extensively use turntables. The only reason System gets lumped into that style is the drop A tuning. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Also KoЯn extensively use turntables Weird, KoЯn has no turntablist in the band

List of members of band: Jon Davis - vocalist Munky - lead guitar Fieldy - bass Ray Luzier - drums.

There's no DJ in the band, so there are no turntables. And also SOAD uses multiple styles of vocals (screaming, singing) a common feature in Nu metal -- (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because there's no one exclusively credited as it doesnt mean they don't use it. Also, you're just copy/pasting an unsourced part of their article, which isn't very convincing either. If you listen to their music, you can hear it. I mean, come on, if no one was listed as bass player, would you just automatically assume there's no bass guitar in their music? And again, no one denies them being numetal, it clearly states it in the article, so you don't need to keep adding arguments for why they are numetal... Sergecross73 msg me 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"you're just copy/pasting an unsourced part of article" Do you think band member list is unsourced thing? Very funny. Of course i heard a turntable scratch in Blind their first song, but in majority of songs i didn't hear a turntable scratch -- (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
In the first case, that's a circular reference. In the second, original research. In both cases, a tangent unrelated to this article. The infobox is a summary of the article, and in summary Nu Metal is a label affixed to System in passing or by uninformed critics. Several reliable critics dismiss that label; no other genre affixed to the band has been dismissed in this same way. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the members themselves, I recognize who the band members are, I'm doubting the instruments/credits you provided. Not sure how many band articles you've watched over in your time here, but editors constantly add/subtract/vandalize little details in the members sections, like whether or not someone provided "backing vocals" , "timeframes active" or various instruments here and there. You may have just copy and pasted that right after it had been altered, but it doesn't matter, it's not like a part of a Wikipedia page that wasn't sourced makes for a valid argument anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

SOAD 5-album bundle

According to this Discogs entry, the band have released a 5-album bundle of all their studio albums.

I ask that it be included, not because "I said so", but because said bundle has actually met some success, at least in Brazil, where it became the band's third Gold album.

So could you please add/mention it to the article about the band? Because I'm dying to put that certification somewhere.--Mαuri’96...over the Borderline” 04:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes reenabled

Pending changes has once again been enabled on this article to weed out abuse by unregistered users. Any changes by new or unregistered users must be approved before they will appear on the live article. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Heavy metal

Heavy metal should definitely be the first or second genre in the infobox. All of SOAD's albums are heavy metal, it even says it on the Wikipedia page of each one, and it's just plain obvious. They are a heavy metal band. Also I have reliable sources. MetalicMadness (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've always disliked the separation between the album articles and artist article; however, this is abundant across Wikipedia. The discussion that settled on the current genres for this article were held a while back, and can be found at Talk:System of a Down/Archive 7#Genre Sources. While I certainly agree that system are a "metal" band, I think alternative metal is more descriptive than the oft overused and more generic heavy metal, which can describe everything from Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin to Meshuggah and Lamb of God. That said, dunno how reliable MTV is for music these days haha. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point. But also, it should say "experimental metal" where it currently just says "experimental" because whenever they play anything experimental, it's metal. "Experimental" could mean anything from "electronic music that's experimental" to experimental folk or minimalist or pop, so here it should specify that they are an "experimental metal" band, not just "experimental music" in general. MetalicMadness (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I could agree to that. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts or objections. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand the fascination with people fervently arguing different categories to lock particular artists into. SOAD is perhaps difficult to confine or define by design, which would make a more universal and itself undefined term like experimental valid. But in reality, they are what they are. Appreciate it each in your own way. Trackinfo (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Experimental is just too general. Like MetallicMaddnes said, it could mean anything. It should at the very least say experimental rock, but metal is more correct. - BrainPower3 (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Because, Trackinfo, I want what is best for the article and the reader's understanding of the band because, after all, this is an encyclopedia. MetalicMadness (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, do keep in mind that each genre isn't standing alone. All four genres combined describe SOAD's style, so they are hard-progressive-alternative-experimental-metal for all purposes sake, as opposed to sometimes a hard rock band, sometimes a progressive band, sometimes an alternative metal band... - Floydian τ ¢ 14:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, give it a few days before changing. The discussion that hammered the current genres was carried out over a month and a half, so we should wait at least a week for less-frequent editors to chime in. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
My observations of this page over many years has shown a constant series of essentially "they are this . . ." "no they aren't" mini edit wars. While there might have been a declared consensus, the reality is there is no agreement. Each new editor that comes in adds their own interpretation of the genre. There is no correct answer. There is no wrong answer. They are, in a broad sense, hard to pin down. Band even regards themselves in that fashion. Who are we to override the band itself. Let me quote the article.

Odadjian stated "You can compare us to whoever you want. I don't care. Comparisons and labels have no effect on this band. Fact is fact: We are who we are and they are who they are.

Trackinfo (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Indeed, and those type of quotes (which have also come out of Daron and Serj) are what lead many reviews to describe them as a Zappa-like group... both share that impossible to define musical style that is best summed up in the word eclectic. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I don't know why you're being so precious just because I suggested a slight change in one of the genres. Just because people say that they are hard to pin down doesn't mean that we can't collectively establish a genre in which to put them. And even if the four listed genres are combined to make SOAD's general genre, a reader of the article will not necessarily know this. As far as a reader who wants to know about the band is concerned by looking at the infobox, SOAD could be a band that sometimes does alt-metal, sometimes prog, sometimes hard rock, and sometimes experimental...??? what, minimalist? pop? electronica? rock? metal? reggae? bongo music? Nigerian grindcore? "Experimental music" just isn't specific enough for this band. MetalicMadness (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What I am suggesting is there is no consensus. Even the declared consensus keeps getting abridged by other editors (not me). The declaration was obviously in error / artificial. Floydian suggested we give it a few days for other voices. I chimed in to remind you and others of the ongoing struggle we have had in trying to pin genres on this band for a long time. I am suggesting wider definitions might work better than narrow. Or as you suggested, a long list of specifics that describe small parts in their overall body of work. By the way, Dolmayan has been quoted saying similar things, so the band is all four united against being categorized. Trackinfo (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the band says about themselves. We have to classify them as something. I don't really like genres myself, but we have to use them. They should be classified as experimental rock, if not metal. Yes, they technically are experimental music, but as we keep pointing out, that could mean just about anything. Experimental rock is already a broad enough term, and we do not need to be any more vague than that. That said, I am not against waiting for more consensus. I want to hear the opinions of others. BrainPower3 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No further discussion... could this be added now? MetalicMadness (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done - Floydian τ ¢ 20:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Peculiar emphasis on ethnicity

Is the ethnicity of the band members really that important and relevant so as to be incorporated into the opening sentence? I find that extraordinarily odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CannotFindAName (talkcontribs) 23:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


The list of categories at the bottom of the article has become rather unruly. The present list includes:

I will clean these up in approximately one week (June 14th) unless arguments are presented for appropriate categories. This is far too much. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Which ones do you propose deleting?--MASHAUNIX 21:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by System of a Down‎

I was surprised to see there was not a List of songs recorded by System of a Down‎. I redirected the page to here for now, but feel free to get a list going before me if you have time and interest. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Prog rock

I've removed prog rock currently. There were only two sources deeming the group to belong to the genre and they are both mis-attributed.

  • First was EW, with " tempering their heaviness with unexpected touches of acoustic folksiness and prog-rock flourishes"
  • Second was The Guardian, "The Armenian-American quartet switch styles, from explosive heavy metal to ornate prog rock to Balkan folk with the speed of an impatient channel-hopper".

The first source, states flourishes, which only suggests dabbling in the genre, not outright being the main or specific style of the group. While the Guardian source states several genres ranging from Balkan folk and only suggests again that the group seems to switch into this genre. That's the equivilant of a rock group doing a Bob Marley cover and all of a sudden they are a reggae band. Not specific and not strong enough. For these reasons, i've removed it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've undone your edit. As per the discussion here, numerous reliable sources claim SOAD are progressive in nature, bringing a Frank Zappa-esque style into alternative metal. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion is now re-opened here as the current sources (which you have re-added) do not state what they claim. If you want to back up this material, find stronger sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Further to that, the sources from the previous discussion are equally weak. The About article "Bouncing between prog-rock, metal, hard rock and arty exotic sounds, System of a Down now seemed to be a genre unto themselves." suggests the group moves between genres, but again is not specific. Again, this article speaks of "Middle Eastern folk music and flourishes of progressive-rock virtuosity" (Chicago Sun Times) also suggests folk and only calls it a "flourish", which is not specific. The MTV source is even more of a joke who are arguing against progressive rock, stating "Well, not exactly. While both bands have been dubbed leaders of a new progressive-rock movement, System are still a metal band at heart, while the Mars Volta are more of a psychedelic jam band.". So your conclusion made prior was not the best one made in my opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
This is purely your opinion... what makes you think it outweighs Jim Dero, or the Chicago Sun Tribune? Step back and gather resources to make a qualified argument. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
My argument isnt whether or not they belong to the genre, my argument and question is whether the sources are specific (they don't seem to be, and even worse is one of them sourced as calling them prog rock is actually saying they are not prog rock (the MTV source)). I'm more curious why you have "come to a consensus" 5 years ago that you ignore the other mentioned genres (folk) or that you think these are strong when they are actually really twisted and not at all what is being stated in the article currently.Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
So go forth and bring back 20 sources and we'll revisit the discussion, as five years is indeed a long time. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't have to bring sources, because I'm not adding new content. My problem is that the current content does not accurately state what is being said in the prose. Simple as that. I'm more curious why you aren't addressing my questions such as "why are these sources appropriate?" or "why did you choose sources that do not state whats in the prose?" and instead just ask me search out...something? I don't think you are reading my posts Floydian. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I just watch over the page. Here are the sources I pulled up back in 2010. I'm sure we can find more now; group them together and calculate the output. Whining doesn't accomplish anything. - Floydian τ ¢ 04:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Alt Metal, Nu Metal, Metal - [13] ( mirrors the allmusic review)
  • Metal, Prog Rock - [14]
  • Metal, Prog Rock, minus one to nu metal - Jim Dero (Chicago sun-times music critic)[15]
  • Metal, Prog Rock, Hard Rock - [16]
  • Experimental, metal (unspecific), minus one to nu-metal - [17]
  • Metal, mentions progressive and experimental nature ("Where the music is concerned, SOAD is adept at odd metre changes, vocal harmonies and employing dynamics in the most unbelievable manner.") - [18]
  • Heavy Metal (passing mention), Nu Metal - [19] "System of a Down have completely cast off the nu-metal tag in recent years", meaning they were nu metal, but aren't in recent years, likely referring to Mesmerize and Hypnotize since the article is from 2005.
Sure, and as stated before
MTV: Again, says they are not prog: "Well, not exactly. While both bands have been dubbed leaders of a new progressive-rock movement, System are still a metal band at heart, while the Mars Volta are more of a psychedelic jam band.". The articles argument is against calling them this.
Jim Dero does not say the band is a prog rock band either, but actually states the band ranges from "beautiful, pseudo-psychedelic arena-rock to Middle Eastern folk music and flourishes of progressive-rock virtuosity". Why are you skipping the other genres if you are still including prog? is more or less describing how hard it is to pin down the bands sound, by stating "Bouncing between prog-rock, metal, hard rock and arty exotic sounds, System of a Down now seemed to be a genre unto themselves.". Again, its not specific enough.
Can't read the article.
I wouldn't mention an interpretation of a style from the thats exactly what we are not supposed to do.

I have some source as well:

  • "Though they are pioneers of the nu-metal genre, ill-timed releases mean that SOAD have been previously overlooked by newcomers to the scene. It is now catchup time, with tracks such as the single Chop Suey proving to be effective tools in the race." (Baird, Dugald, et al. "SYSTEM OF A DOWN: Toxicity." Music Week 18 Aug. 2001: 31. Academic OneFile. Web. 27 July 2015.)"
  • "Multi-platinum alternative metal act System of a Down" CMJ

The inclusions of the vagueness, seem like we should also include "free jazz" because of this Spin article: "“Sugar,” which loosed bizarro singer Serj Tankian on free jazz verses between crunching refrains, while the rest of the album toyed with oom-pah circus music (“Peephole”) and thrashabilly (“DDevil”)."source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the MTV article argues against calling them progressive. Jim Dero describes them as having flourishes of progressive rock, which is enough for me to consider it an argument for progressive rock. also specifically lists prog rock as a sound they use. Bands can work in multiple genres; listing many genres does not weaken any one of them. Either way, two sources for and one against isn't particularly strong evidence that they work in prog rock. I don't consider a reliable source, so it's really only one reliable article calling them progressive, with one article arguing against it. It should be removed. ~ RobTalk 15:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"which is enough for me to consider it an argument for progressive rock.". Not it is not. That's like saying the Police are a reggae band because of "flourishes of reggae" or or a band is a funk band because of a funky bass. Absolutely not. And yes, so far the others are not very signifigantly for it, I'm very surprised the previous consensus thought this was the way to go. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
So far we have two for remove and one for keep and the one for keep has not responded to issues on their sources not being strong. If there is no further discussion in the next few days, I'll remove the genre from the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This artist is not related to progressive rock (as a genre 70s)

Yes, there are experimental and difficult moments, but they are well within the alternative metal.

reasonable to call it experimental rock or metal, as is a broader concept — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Well put. While I myself believe progressive rock to be a more encompassing genre that includes experimental, ambient, worldly or alternative music, it seems consensus is clear the other way. As such I withdraw my objections and support the removal of progressive rock at this time, with no prejudice to future discussions. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As there have been no further proof to back this up and at least three more posts (two users, one anonymous IP), I'm going to remove this category. Further conversation for it's re-inclusion is welcome, and don't forget to cite your sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that it is still relevant to include the flourishes and what not in the style section of the article, though removal of progressive rock from the infobox makes sense for now. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yeah that's fine. But I'm glad we agree that it's not a strong enough term for the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any Cardiacs fans here that can help gather sources for more verifiable genre listings on that article, while we're talking about "things that relate to prog"? --JuggaloProghead (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on System of a Down. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal/experimental metal

No. SOAD is definitely metal. Just listen to some of their songs, like Sugar, BYOB, and War, just to name a few. Those aren't rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethkarlthomas2000 (talkcontribs) 00:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Try listening to an actual metal band or two, then come back and listen to those 'metal' tracks by System of A Massive Pop Culture Cash-in. Then let us know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Nu metal revisited

I propose that nu metal be placed in the infobox parameter for genre, and the hidden note removed, the one that says don't put nu metal here.

I can see in talk archive 7 that a lot of discussion covered this question, but one of the most insistent editors was a sockpuppet of Sugar Bear, and in any case the evidence against nu metal was not very strong. I can find a lot of reliable sources saying SOAD was nu metal, but the ones that say SOAD was not nu metal are largely discussion forums and less reliable. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

SOAD lack almost every characteristic used to classify nu metal groups. The chorus of BYOB is about as close as they come. There were several noted music critics, as well as the band themselves, who dispute the fly-by labeling of others. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The band's own opinion is worthless in this discussion. A passing mention of their opinion is certainly worthy of the article but it should not affect how we treat the critical reviews.
What I'm after here is a comparison of the sources that affirm nu metal versus the sources that deny nu metal, to get a sense of comparative authority. I bet we will find more weight on the nu metal side than the denial side. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They don't have any hip hop (actual hip hop not just fast singing) industrial or funk influences, the only thing they have in common with nu metal is that murky downtuned guitar sound, so it makes more sense to just classify them as the parent genre of nu metal (alternative metal). That at least implies their genre is related to nu metal. Opinion aside there are a lot of reliable sources that oppose the idea of SOAD being nu metal so surely that counters the one that say they are. --I call the big one bitey (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

And what's interesting is that I haven't ever encountered a band who's genre is so contentious to the point that big music critics take time to insist that they are NOT nu metal. It's one thing to say "6 sources say nu metal, the other 5 don't", but it's completely different if its "6 sources say nu metal, but 4 sources specifically discount that". I think the discounting of a genre holds more weight than the application of a genre, personally. - Floydian τ ¢ 23:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Come on, if you can ignore consensus on Mudvayne, which is clearly progressive metal and not nu-metal, you can ignore consensus on System of a Down, since SOAD made music which actually sounds like nu-metal. (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter about our own opinions as genre is subjective. What we need is sources discussing how they do or do not fit in the genre. If it's a very mixed response about whether or not they belong to a genre or movement (in this case, nu-metal) that material should still be included in the prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, come on, you wouldn't be claiming System of a Down isn't nu-metal if you didn't have a strong opinion that they're not nu-metal. There's a "consensus" here clearly based on opinion. (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of any consensus. You require sources backing your claim first. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is and remains by reliable sources and by us editors that SOAD is NOT nu metal. It merits mention in the article, not in the infobox genre. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, bullshit. All this amounts to is that Wikipedia can distort reality to the whim of the editors' opinions and not actually work with reality, but against it. (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Provide reliable sources claiming that they're nu metal if you wish editors to seriously consider including this in the infobox. ~ RobTalk 22:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Not that this in favour, but this published book has a better case for them not being nu metal more than being for it: here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't read the Google preview, which says it's not available. What does the book say? JuggaloProghead (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
""Althought System Of A Down weren't a nu-metal band - their music had its own, unique identity and they didn't use rapping or a DJ - they were lumped in with that movement because they departed so radically from the template, despite being recognisably a metal act." Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There was a consensus against including nu metal made a long time ago. Nu metal is a subgenre of alternative metal and therefore not adding nu metal is fine since alternative metal is in the infobox's genre field. Statik N (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on System of a Down. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference was invoked but never defined (see the help page).