Talk:A Thousand Suns/Archive 3

Backing Vocals?
Brad, Rob, Joe, and Pheonix don't do background vocals. They never did. Mike is the bands background vocalist. Stop saying the others do background vocals. They don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What's your source? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They do on this record...as the documentary "Meeting of A Thousand Suns" shows. That's part of their changing sound, group chant vocals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.64.183 (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Brad, Rob, Joe and Phoenix have done backing vocals on this record. Mike Shinoda did co-lead vocals shared with Chester Bennington according to the AMG A A Thousand Suns Credit Section. Refer to the following link: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dxfrxzwrld6e~T20BC Kevon100 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall the album notes for Reanimation had all the whole band doing backing vocals.110.174.65.202 (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Meeting of A Thousand Suns shows the whole band recording vocals for The Catalyst. It's when you hear the NO part in The Catalyst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.246.252 (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I also recall the notes for Hybrid Theory and Meteora saying the whole band does backing vocals. I dont hear them singing backing vocals on the first two albums. Minutes to Midnight also said that they do backing vocals. Though the only part I found with backing vocals is in Hands Held High. Yes, A Thousand Suns does have them doing backing vocals. When they performed The Catalyst live at the VMAs, they rest of the bands did do backing vocals. Though during the two live albums Live in Texas and Road To Revolution dosen't them doing backing vocals. Well they made a change, so now they do on A Thousand Suns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Laser Light Exhibition
So there was this laser light exhibition for the album on 8th September where they played all the songs with 3D visuals and, well, laser lights. http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/live-review-linkin-park-a-thousand-suns-laser-light-exhibition-the-henry-fonda-theater-hollywood/7636482 Can we add it to the article? And if we can, then under which section? Release? [ 30 scorp ]  talk 10:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Single
Can anyone actually confirm if Waiting for the End is the 2nd single? I heard rumours that it was and Mike put a link on his blog to a video on youtube thats on LPs channel. Plus it charted on the Alternative and Rock charts this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.104.80 (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Read this article. --Djlordi (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita
Just proposing a correction, that yes the Bhagavad Gita is an Indian Sanskrit Scripture, but the use of the Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu scripture, and that the word "Indian" on the page should be replaced with "Hindu", as the first track on the album - The Requiem, references it as Hindu first and foremost.

90.201.190.163 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have the album to hear the track in question. The Wikipedia article on the Bhagavad Gita calls it a Hindu text; however, the press release cited as a source in the article says "Now how would you react if I'd say that this album has an Indian connection. Confused? Wel, the name 'A Thousand Suns' has been lifted from a qoute [sic] in Bhagavat Gita…" So, I think you can make a case for referring to the Gita as Hindu or Indian. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The track also refers to the Hindu God Vishnu also. And there's the case that Indian and Hinduism is not the same, the Bhagavad Gita is a sacred Hindu text (it's not just Indian), and the track clearly features the aspect of Hinduism. 90.201.190.163 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre-Warring
I'm sick of this constant genre-warring. We can all agree that the album is rock music in some form or another, right? Even if you think it fits better under a different subgenre, does anyone object to the genre being changed to just "rock" in the infobox temporarily while we sort out the subgenres in a civil manner on the talk page? That way we would have a generic version to revert to until there's some consensus on the subject here. So per WP:B, I'm going to go ahead and change the genre to "rock," so if there are unsourced genre changes made without talk page consensus, editors have something basic to revert back to. This system has worked fairly well on other articles, so hopefully it will, make this one more consistent, without the genre being changed from rap rock to industrial rock every two minutes.


 * The premise that has to be accepted is, the genre will be decided by a reliable music source. I am sure everyone can agree the album is alternative rock to some degree. Just leaving it as rock music is kind of questionable as The Beatles are listed as just rock. If another subgenre is to be added, we'll wait for a reliable music source to confirm this. According to the AMG the album has been classified as heavy metal, and pop metal. Kevon100 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have always liked for the genre in the infobox to stem directly from the reviews in the reception section. What are the reviews here describing the genre as? Fezmar9 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember, It doesn't have to sound anything like The Beatles to be Rock music. Sounding like the Beatles or any other major band like that isn't a standard that has to be met. What something sounds like in relation to another band is irrelevant. But alternative rock works fine in my opinion, especially for this album in particular if you want to change it to that. But adding heavy metal and pop metal, regardless of sources, is arbitrary and bound to be controversial among other editors. We can't just add in anything that a website says. But if you want to go ahead and change it from "Rock" to "Alternative rock" I'm fine with that. As for the reviews, there haven't been many major ones yet. Allmusic will most likely file it under "Pop/Rock" like all the other Linkin Park albums. Friginator (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is under pop/rock that's the genre but the styles according to AMG are heavy metal and pop metal but yes alternative rock should have a widespread approval among readers and editors.Kevon100 (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Alternative seems quite appropriate to me. It's what I've always seen Linkin Park referred to, aside from Nu Metal - which they've obviously moved away from. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just put Alternative otherwise you will have a million subgenres because of Linkin Park being a Hybrid band. Plus on itunes it has A Thousand Suns classed as Alternative. I wouldn't put Metal for this album since theres only 1 metal song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.104.80 (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The album has been cited as alternative metal and post-grunge by the AllMusic senior reviewer Stephen Erlewine. I will be changing the genre to such if the above mentioned contributors have accepted my premise and conclusion. Visit this link for confirmation.Kevon100 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That link does not support your claim. We're talking about the genre, not the styles incorporated throughout the album. Allmusic, like in most cases like this, just lists the genre as Pop/Rock. Friginator (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is factual that indeed the albums are sorted as Pop/Rock in any music store...alternative rock, hard rock, death metal, heavy metal, etc. are merely styles of pop/rock but us Wikipedians and serious music collectors take these styles and tag our music using them as genres for specific reasons. One is, we can differentiate between Metallica and Katy Perry and two, it's more appropriate. My request still stands, if this is helping, AMG may even cite alternative rock as the style but they did not. Let's not check if it's either genre or style it's been categorized as. It has been tagged by a professional and is useful for the article. Kevon100 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is also notable that Allmusic is just a resource where an editor/data entry personnel enter this information in based on opinion. I believe the broader descriptor of Alternative Rock is probably the best way to go to avoid conflict. Metal is a derivative of Rock is it not? Linkin Park's variance in musical style is far to great to list. I suggest Alternative Rock and leaving it there. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, Kevon100, let me get this straight--you want to add genres that Allmusic DOESN'T list? Why? Allmusic doesn't list the genre as alternative metal or post-grunge. That's enough. How is further genre-warring and controversy useful at all? There are plenty of constructive ways to contribute to Wikipedia without every editor insisting that their interpretations be crammed into the infobox. Sorry, genres just aren't supposed to work like that. You can't pile on every single style a website mentions in a review. Wikipedia isn't here so "serious music collectors" can "differentiate between Metallica and Katy Perry", like you said. If you want to tag your music with different subgenres, go ahead. Go to Allmusic or iTunes or just come up with your own interpretations. But Wikipedia isn't here for that purpose. It's here so people can read useful encyclopedic information about the album. Friginator (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * With all honesty, the genre alternative rock doesn't exist. "People can read useful encyclopedic information" is based on facts, given by professionals, be it iTunes or Allmusic. As I said heavy metal, death metal, hard rock, they do not exist as genres but as styles of pop/rock. Are we out to tag every pop and rock album as such?, no...we list the styles under genre. This is not much of an interpretation, this article is not made for editors to state their personal opinion or interpretation but what exactly is given by a professional source. But on the contrary you are correct, so in the end yes I agree we leave it as alternative rock. Kevon100 (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gundam, Gunpla and Linkin Park
http://www.wmg.jp/linkin_park/ Ngee Khiong is not making this up. At least Warner Music and Bandai were doing something to promote the album in Japan. So what do you think about this?Blackgaia02 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see one is a first-party source which would be verifiable if we were on the Japanese Wikipedia, but by the nature of this being the English Wikipedia where the primary, and most likely, for that matter, the only, language most editors here are capable of communicating in is English. By that point, it is inherently unverifiable. It may be a reliable source, but remember that there are two points to a proper reference: Reliability, and Verifiability. The other is a blog based on such, and also uses an additional source which falls into the same trap as the aforementioned, and by nature, unverifiable. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So now what? It should be excluded completely? Japan is not gonna be happy with this. Seining that it's not considered invalid internationally while in Japan, the announcement is seriously official.Blackgaia02 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I found some links:
 * Daily Video: Gundam EX Vs. Game Opening with Linkin Park
 * Linkin Park Rock Album to Bundle Gundam Plastic Model
 * "Gundam"-Game-Opening mit Linkin-Park-Song online
 * Are these good sources? --Djlordi  (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anime News Network is a pretty reliable source and I'd recommend using them. Just take care to be sure that the statement is not a copyvio or doesn't become an advertisement. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh great. Now it's all gone. I AM NOW mad.Blackgaia02 (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Charts
so how long does it take for an album to chart on billboard? just askin... cuz i think this album should at least be on SOME charts...shudnt it?--68.48.143.184 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
I have one simple question. Why are some of the reviews (e.g. the negative review published by New York Daily News) always being removed? " Kevon 1 0 0    Ω  Talk!  20:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we take the New York Daily News review because:

1) Its written exremely poorly and I would not consider it a real professional review. 2) It is extremely bias towards Linkin Park. 3) I just hate that review lol and its pisses me off because of the above reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.243.239 (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and people ask why I keep tagging it as non-neutral. People seem to be selectively citing positive reviews. A review does not have to be well written. It just needs to be reliable. The method of prose does not dictate the quality of the report... unless of course it was really just written that bad. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not up to us Wikipedians to judge whether if reviews are biased, non-biased, poorly or accurately written. The aim always to have reviews that are reliable and verifiable. Wikipedians must maintain a neutral point of view on all articles if it's going to achieve a good article or even featured article status. We need to include the album's praise and neglect in all ten of our published rating because A Thousand Suns has its share of positive and negative reviews.  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 22:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we can agree that a review, by it's nature, is biased as it is subject to the author's opinion. The question is just how biased it is. But I cannot agree on your point of a poorly written review. I've seen some that are just really bad and I wonder how they possibly could ever have passed a reference check. Likewise, I've seen some which are really good and are removed. Then there's Examiner.com.... But an article should not show the author's lean, especially in the Reception section. This is why a lot of times, criticism sections are removed as they tend to offset an articles neutrality immensely; such an example would be Verizon FiOS (which is an article with plenty of it's own problems as it stands). To loosely quote an essay I read some time ago and cannot remember the name or author of: "If I finish reading an article, and I feel I have a grasp of the author's opinion / point of view, then the article is not neutral". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 07:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well at this point the review section seems to be written in a neutral point of view so can we please end this "dispute" and remove the box? Also, this is non-related but a section about the Styles and themes should be created.  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Concept Album?
Reviewers have called this a concept album, however, Mike Shinoda has twice said that it is not. Can we really say it's a concept album in the header when Mike says it isn't? JDC808 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's an article on it Linkin Park Bury A Thousand Suns 'Concept Record' Talk JDC808 (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Except he doesn't deny it in that article. He just says that it's abstract and without any kind of story, unlike narrative albums such as Tommy. Here's Mike Shinoda's quote:


 * "And I think, as we finished it, it became clear that, usually the problem with concept records is, like, [the] term usually refers to things like Tommy or ... rock operas and stuff like than that has a narrative. And this doesn't have a narrative; it's more abstract that that. So if those albums are more of an Andy Warhol, this is more of a Jackson Pollock. You can kind of look at it, and all the stuff's in there; you pull out whatever it means to you."


 * So basically, VH1's news whole article is just gossip (which they are known for). The band had already said this before. They've already clearly stated that there wasn't going to be a storyline or narrative. This is nothing new. On the other hand, here are two reviews that clearly explain the record's "concept album" status: this one, from The Music Network's review which actually says "Quite obviously, A Thousand Suns is a concept album.". And this one from Review Rinse Repeat, which ALSO goes into detail about the album's concept. So yes, it's a concept album, regardless of how you interpret the band's statements. Friginator (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, this article is not from VH1, it's from MTV. The article there on VH1 is the exact copy from the one posted on MTV. I wish I could find the video that he did on Ustream where he says it's not a concept album. Personally, I don't see why you would believe a reviewer, someone who's giving their opinion on whether the album is good or bad, calling it a concept album over the person(s) who wrote the album. The album is like a concept album, no doubt, but when the guy who wrote it says it's not (directly or indirectly), then well, it's not. Simple as that. JDC808 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for believing your link to the VH1 website was a VH1 article. You could have just linked straight to wherever you found the article in the first place, but I digress. MTV is another website which isn't always a good source for "news" like this. It's good for a lot of things, but this seems more like gossip, or someone trying to make a story out of nothing (or very little), as is common in the music new industry. The quote still contradicts what you've said, and notable reviews do count as reliable sources when it comes to this subject. Friginator (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that Shinoda flat out denies that it's a concept album, then immediately turns around and states that it's "multi-concept record". Is a multi-concept record not a concept record? He goes on to say, "You can kind of look at it, and all the stuff's in there; you pull out whatever it means to you." which sounds to me like it is in fact a concept album to a lesser degree. He admits there is some form of an underlaying theme, but makes it sound like the meaning is highly subjective. Kind of a more subtle concept album. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that this has been a question brought up previously: See Archive 2: Talk:A_Thousand_Suns/Archive_2. In an interview and a personal video, Mike Shinoda flatly denied it being a concept album and it was subsequently removed from the article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, remember that the discussion in question was from before from the album was released or heard by anyone. It makes little to no sense to discuss the content of an album that hasn't been released (part of why I archived it when A Thousand Suns had been released). I would also like to point out that 1) The video, unfortunately, has been removed, so we can't verify what Shinoda said in it as of now. And 2), artists going back and forth on whether or not their album is a concept album isn't new. For example, just look at last year's 21st Century Breakdown from the rock band Green Day. The writer of the entire album, Billie Joe Armstrong, flatly denied that it was a concept album, even though the record has a three act structure and the lyrics include multiple references to recurring fictional characters. It was marketed as a concept album, and it's still considered one. So there are similarities between this and other similar issues. Friginator (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the last couple of album's from Green Day haven't been Concept Albums, Guns N' Roses shows up to performances on time. That was my poor attempt at humor for the moment. But it's true, artists can never seem to make up their minds on these things. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 06:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chevy182, 19 September 2010
I noticed the article refers only, in the reception section, to music critics opinions but noticing the controversy on the fan base I find worth mentioning to note the contrast of reactions among fans on A Thousand Suns. Here's my proposition (or a example of it): "Upon its release, A Thousand Suns received "among their fans mixed reviews but" generally favorable reviews from most music critics.[25] At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 61, based on 8 reviews, which indicates "generally favorable reviews".[25]"

Thanks in advance!

Chevy182 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Adjusted a bit for grammar, but still did the gist of what you were suggesting.  elektrik SHOOS  22:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * : Inevitably WP:OR and unverifiable. Only evidence to this is from word of mouth by fans, fan-based forums, and/or comments on retailer websites. By their nature, such claims are unsustainable nor reliable sources and only can fall within the category of original research. WP:FANSITE delves deeper into this. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Experimental rock/music
I really think experimental should be added... I mean, this isnt purly an alternative rock album and I'm sure everyone can agree it has alot of experimentation... 121.219.58.87 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a reason we're sticking with one general genre. The album uses various different styles. For example, due to the various styles incorporated on the album, we could also conceivably add any of these:


 * Acoustic music
 * Alternative metal
 * Alternative hip hop
 * Avant-garde metal
 * Breakcore
 * Electronic rock
 * Folk metal
 * Grime
 * Hardcore hip hop
 * Industrial music
 * Melodic hardcore
 * New Wave music
 * Nu metal
 * Pop rock
 * Post-industrial music
 * Post-metal
 * Progressive metal
 * Reggae fusion
 * Symphonic rock


 * ...but I'm guessing that any one of those would be controversial, probably more-so than "Alternative rock". I hear them, but I doubt everyone else does. So if there's consensus, "Experimental" might be okay, but every genre that is added creates more and more controversy.
 * Friginator (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the sheer number of potential genres that could possibly describe A Thousand Suns, it was decided to go with Alternative Rock so as to be all encompassing rather than debate over listing them all.ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 18:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.156.221.29, 23 September 2010
Mike Shinoda posted where A thousand suns debuted.

U.S. - #1 Germany - #1 Australia - #1 Japan - #1 Canada - #1 South Africa - #1 Portugal - #1 New Zealand - #1 Switzerland – #1 Austria - #1 Hong Kong - #1 Korea - #1 Singapore - #1 Thailand - #1 UK - #2 Denmark - #2 Mexico - #2 Spain - #3 Ireland - #3 France - #4 Norway - #4 Belgium - #4

and on the minutes to midnight page, Someone has spelled Belgium as Belgiam.

81.156.221.29 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Is there a secondary source that lists these debut positions, rather than a posting from a bandmember? —C.Fred (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see the typo you mentioned on Minutes to Midnight; I see correct usages of Belgium and Belgian there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't have a secondary source, I only saw it on Linkinpark.com.

Oh right, my mistake, Sorry about that, I just automatically thought it was a typo, But my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.221.29 (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Mixed-To-Positive
Just a couple of points of discussion I'd like to address with the inclusion of the wording "Mixed-to-positive" over the wording of "Positive". First up is the noted point of the wording being redundant. I argue that it is not. Mixed implies a varied response while positive implies a generally favorable response. How these two are possibly redundant is beyond me. Another is the point of how Metacritic applies it's own standards of weights and measures to assign a rating. While it is clearly evident from the reviews cited that the album itself has been met with mixed reviews, some even entirely polarized, because of the way Metacritic assigns a rating value, it has been given a 63 - which is termed by Metacritic as being generally favorable. Meanwhile, Metacritic has only selectively aggregated 9 critics total, not one is a negative review despite those being readily available. This fact alone makes the value unreliable, and is not dissimilar to cherry picking. It is invariably incorrect to factually state that the album has received generally favorable reviews when reviews available show polarization in the response. With this in mind, I put forth that perhaps the best way to go about it is to say that the album has received mixed "Average" (see ensuing conversation below) reviews rather than "positive", "negative", or "mixed-to-positive". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mixed to Positive" is redundant. It's like saying "Negative and positive and positive". Rounding up like that is redundant and biased. You seem to think that "Mixed" is a neutral term, when it in fact implies various polarized opinions. Also note that linking to articles such as "redundant" is inappropriate on a talk page, as other Wikipedia articles do not represent any kind of Wikipedia policy.Friginator (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only inappropriate if you are citing it as policy. I did not. I only used it to show specifically in what context I did not see it as being redundant. Please do not make assumptions about my intentions (This is a link to a Wikipedia Policy). I subsequently used "mixed" at the time, after changing from "mixed-to-positive", because I thought "mixed" showed a wider range of opinions, which would be more accurate considering the range of reviews this album has received. I think we can all agree that the album has not received positive reviews all around, and I think we have all witnessed that there has been some polarization with regards to the reviews. I subsequently changed it to "average" after examining the statement put forth by Fezmar9 below. However, on subsequent review, I even question the usage of that. Average implies that it has received only average reviews, but mixed implies a range of reviews. It certainly has not received polarized reviews of either success or flop, but it has seen a whole range of them. If I may, I'd like to redirect your attention to the conversation below as I'd like to propose a different method of stating the lead-in section. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the range of the reviews I have seen, I believe 'average' may be the most appropriate phrase. Positive or negative implies that the number of reviews are skewed toward the positive or negative, which doesn't seem the be the case here. Mixed implies that there are a fairly equal number of positive, negative and average reviews, which I don't really see either. I only see a small number of positive and negative reviews with the majority falling somewhere in between, or average. I also don't full agree with Metacritic's methods, and don't feel they have the final say about how this album was received, especially with only nine reviews being used to calculate the album's score. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Metacritic is a professionally operated database and if they have deemed the album's critical response as "generally favorable" then there is no reason why this should not be placed in the article. I request that it stays with Metacritic's result.  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 00:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not consider "average". That seems to be a much more appropriate response than mixed or positive. Additionally, as mentioned, Metacritic may be professionally operated, but so is a typical poll. If the measuring is flawed, the outcome is as well. Metacritic is not infallible, nor is it free of opinion. In example, the Daily News - which assigned the album a 1 out of 5, is the 5th most circulated paper in the entire United States, but it is not included as part of Metacritic's content aggregation. If it was, and taking into consideration Metacritics conversions methods, the review would be given a grade of anywhere between 0 and 20 on Metacritics scale and - as Metacritic performs a weighted average, would drastically bring down that rating from it's present 63 position. Metacritic, indeed, should not have the final input on what is a products rating. That said, the majority do indeed seem to fall within the range of "Average", making that the best terminology to use . ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "average" an appropriate term to describe the reaction to an individual album? Average is a comparative term, and doesn't really seem to make sense in this context. I fail to see what's wrong with "Mixed." Friginator (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The term 'average' has a few different definitions. For example, Metacritic calculates an average, or mean value, based on the reviews they find. The definition of average in this context is mid-ranged, or in between positive and negative. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the context, but it's still a comparative term regardless. Shouldn't we go with "mixed"? I don't understand what the reluctance to stick with that is. Friginator (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro to the reception section here is starting off with an overall generalization of all the reviews, so the statement itself is a comparison of ratings regardless of what word is placed in there. Mixed implies that there are a somewhat equal number of negative reviews, average reviews and positive reviews--or a high degree of variance among the reviews. The majority of the reviews I have seen have been more midrange. Some reviewers hate it, some reviewers love it, but most lie somewhere in the middle. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It has become clear that both the terms "mixed" and "average" bring with them their own set of connotations. I'd like to put forth, if I may, an example of a different kind of lead-in statement to the reception section: "A Thousand Suns has seen an array of responses by critics, some who have given it high ratings, and some who have given it low ratings. The majority of responses by music critics tend to fall in the mid-range of ratings". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement saying "A Thousand Suns has seen an array of responses by critics, some who have given it high ratings, and some who have given it low ratings. The majority of responses by music critics tend to fall in the mid-range of ratings". can be summarized as one word: 'mixed'. I don't see a reason why the lead cannot have "generally favorable reviews". The average has been weighted as what Metacritic considers valid and reliable review sources. "Mixed-to-Positive" is redundant as "mixed" encompasses both positive and negative reviews. It's not unanimous in any way and placing it to the verdict Metacritic has given seems justified, non-biased and non-argumentative.  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is biased if Metacritic only has nine reviews and they're mostly all favorable. Their list of accepted publications is around 100 review sources. Nine out of one hundred is not a large enough sample size to accurately portray the album's wide reception from the music community as a whole. I notice Metacritic has not included the negative reviews from Allmusic or the New York Daily News, two very respectable sources of information. A truly neutral and unbiased source would include these negative reviews. It's also likely they will include more than nine reviews in the coming weeks, so why rely so heavily on something that is subject to change? Fezmar9 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Metacritic is something so heavily biased in it's own right, which is why I made that point. Metacritic should not be the standard bearer of what is and what is not a critical reaction, just as Rotten Tomatoes is not for movies. I must make note that I failed to notice their failure to include Allmusic as a source for a review. Selectively excluding and including certain reviews to lead to a certain rating is not unbiased and is the very definition of cherry picking. I'd also like to point out the way Metacritic scores:
 * "Metascore is a weighted average in that we assign more importance, or weight, to some critics and publications than others, based on their quality and overall stature."
 * Now I must query, if you're weighing some scores as being worth more than others, how is that impartial? Also, the 5th largest publication in the United States isn't of enough quality or stature to be included in their rating system at all? With that said, I'll cite a quote from WP:RTMC: "Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not arbiters of critical consensus" (Emphasis added). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 03:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't see why it shouldn't be "generally favorable" but will mixed be adequate then?  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

'"A Thousand Suns has seen an array of responses by critics, some who have given it high ratings, and some who have given it low ratings. The majority of responses by music critics tend to fall in the mid-range of ratings" ' Seriously what the hell does this mean? This is like some fan page result. On a sample of ten reviews we have one negative review, two/three mixed and the others are positive. There was no general consensus met for that garbage to be available on the page. I believe we either a) place it as "mixed" or b) we place generally favorable reviews. It makes logical sense then  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I applied WP:BOLD. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 23:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Kevon100's sentiment here. There's no harm in calling it mixed. The way it is now seems unnecessarily confusing. Can we just go with mixed, please? Friginator (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Though I previously heavily pushed it, I, personally speaking, have slight reservations about the word mixed - only because of Fezmar9's previously expressed sentiments. Outside of that, I'm for it, but don't see how it could be confusing in it's present format. To be honest, I'd rather we just dropped the introductory statement and Metacritic mention entirely. Metacritic is linked in the review table on the right so it's not really necessary. Also, is there really any need for an introductory reception paragraph for what users can easily determine for themselves by reading the reviews, especially when it is not specifically mandated by the music MoS? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was taking in all of the review scores I had seen and interpreted an overall 'average' rating from a purely statistical point of view. From all of the reviews I have seen, the majority of scores are between 50% and 70%. There are a few publications that reviewed the album outside of this range, but those are just outliers. The statement that's bolded above, and that was also added to article, is the definition of a normal distribution, also known as average. If the majority of reviews land within a certain range, how is that mixed? Fezmar9 (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When I made the statement, "A Thousand Suns has seen an array of responses by critics, some who have given it high ratings, and some who have given it low ratings. The majority of responses by music critics tend to fall in the mid-range of ratings", I thought it would be all encompassing and be able to better to cover the topic at hand. It removed the specific wordings thus removing any possible sense of pov pushing, any possible sense of word connotation confusion, and would present nothing more than a denotative statement. I'm obviously all for this statement, but I also said what I said in the comment directly above as it seems that we're going to have some difficulty if at all reaching ANY consensus what-so-ever. That said, perhaps it's about time for a 3PO request. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 11:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you speak about the "mid range" you are indeed implying mixed, correct? The general introductory statement will just display the average critical response. Since Metacritic is not a reliable source of general consensus, and the album has seen its share of positive, mixed and negative reviews it is best that we put where the album has fell into the most. In this context the "mixed" sector rather than the "mid range of ratings".  Kevon100    Talk! If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your query about the mid-range, I refer to the median range of scoring reviews, or specifically, reviews which have fallen between 4-7. Mixed and mid-range are not one in the same which is why I take issue with it the connotation that they are being used interchangeably. Mixed implies that there is such a wide variety of reviews that it's not possible to classify the consensus. What I'm saying in that statement and by using the word mid-range is that some reviews are outlying polar opposites (extremely positive or extremely negative) while the majortity of the reviews fall within the mid-range of scoring templates, i.e. on a scale of 1-5, 2.5; on a scale of 1-10, between 4 and 7; on a scale of F-A, C; and the like. Mixed is what you get when you look at things like critical reactions to the movie, Constantine where reviews are quite literally all over the place and it's impossible to determine a general consensus (which is probably why that rating sits at a statistical tie if you follow the general rule of ±3-5 point margin of error). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 23:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

polish album chart.
http://olis.onyx.pl/listy/index.asp?lang=en Poland - #2, please add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.185.47 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Chart procession
Please add in the chart procession that the album was on September 24, 2010 until October 8, 2010 in Germany. The next No.-1-album is "Rock Symphonies" by David Garrett source--79.216.202.52 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Djlordi  (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dated info in Release section
An UPDATE is needed because the source states single will be released on but incorrectly attributed in the wiki as 'was'. Dates can be pushed back so show a SALES source for ACTUAL Release date as now this is in the past.—Iknow23 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Release History list shows incorrect dates. --Stryn  (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stryn (talk • contribs)
 * So provide MORE reliable sources for correct dates.—Iknow23 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A Thousand Suns Quotable Review
Is this notable enough to be included in the Critical Reception Section of the article?

"It's funny how the music business works. Release an amazing debut album, and it is generally recognized as such by critics and laymen, helps to set a new genre standard, is replayed for years, and assists the band in building a huge fanbase. After that is when things get weird. If the band in question decides not to vary their formula, makes mediocre music that retains many of the elements of their original material, and plays it safe, their fans stick by them and the critics aren't too harsh (see: the response to my review of the new Goo Goo Dolls album). However, if the band realizes that to make a real, long-lasting impact on the world they must be fluid, maturing with every album, changing their sound, exploring new territory, they are vilified by former "fans" and critics alike. They are disparaged all over the internet, ignored and/or disemboweled by elitist music listeners, and their efforts at making cutting-edge, mature, different music are mocked, whether or not the mockery is justified. And in many cases, it isn't." - Linkin Park, A Thousand Suns Review by Jordy Kasko on ReviewRinseRepeat.com

http://www.reviewrinserepeat.com/artist/linkin-park/album/a-thousand-suns/review

— Odin_son 19:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Blackout on FIFA 11.
The song Blackout is on the football (soccer) game FIFA 11. I thought that this should be included somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.44.26 (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No trivia please. --Muhandes (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.13.183.69, 13 November 2010
On your page for Linkin Park's "A Thousand Suns", it says that the album came out on September 8th, when it really came out on September 14th.

24.13.183.69 (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See this: A Thousand Suns --Stryn  (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide sales
Worldwide sales: 1.7 million

Please add that! SOURCE--79.216.153.186 (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the United World Chart is deprecated per WP:BADCHARTS. That calls the reliability of the sales figure into question. Do you have a (more) reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic Source
Following the link, the Metacritic page states that the album recieved "Generally positive reviews", yet the text that sources it states that it recieved "mixed reviews". Surely, this is conflicting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.83.203 (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, because Metacritic isn't the only source of reviews cited. The "mixed reviews" statement isn't based on Metacritic alone. There are plenty of others, and many of them aren't nearly as positive. Friginator (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RTMC - Further Reading. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:RTMC, "The critics at Metacritic are generally considered reliable and authoritative sources and are ideal for sampling. However, other usable reviews exist outside these websites." Friginator (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually leaning more to this point, "Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are not arbiters of critical consensus; sections about critical reception should also benefit from other reliable sources, such as books and periodicals reporting in retrospect how a film was received by critics." However, both are quite effective summaries. I recall this being a quite contingent point on why we settled on a "mixed" reaction - especially considering Metacritic's sampling size and habits, not to mention their practices of assigning certain reviews higher weight than others. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was settled. Also, not only is Metacritic basing this on only ten reviews, but there are just as many "mixed" as there are positive. Friginator (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Year-End-Charts
Germany: No. 11 Please add :) ! source--79.216.178.163 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

and Austria No. 10, source: http://charts.orf.at/oe3/o-y2k1/2010/longplay2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.152.183.10 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic Ambiguity
Can someone explain to me how ATS has a Metacritic score of 67 and was described as getting 'mixed reviews', while Meteora is described in its article as getting 'positive reviews' even though it has a lower Metacritic score of 62? DVD Smith (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed extensively already. See here, and here. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  22:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Progressive Rock?
I think this album could easily be considered progressive rock, which has become a very diverse genre over the last 10-15 years. This album in particular would be very much in the progressive rock vein of bands like Porcupine Tree, with A Thousand Suns resembling in many ways Porcupine Tree's 2009 album 'The Incident', both in structure and musical styles. 142.68.162.221 (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need for more genres. Alternative rock works fine, and there's been plenty of consensus on that. Friginator (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable sources that say they are progressive rock? If so, then yes. If not, then no. It's pretty simple. Sergecross73   msg me   02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)