Talk:Indestructible (Disturbed album)/Archive 1

Hard Rock
Can someone explain to me how this is hard rock at all? I understand why 10K fists was thought of as rock, since songs like "Stricken", and "Just Stop" do feel a little "rocky", but I'm not feeling anything like that for Indestructible. They all seem alternative metal to me. If anyone could just list songs from the album, or parts of the songs that are considered "rock" that would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.37.102 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please post new sections as the bottom of the page, thanks. The entire genre is rock, everything that is heavy metal, alt metal, hard rock, etc, falls under "rock".  But the debate here is that some people label Indestructible heavy metal, while the real metal fans don't find it heavy enough, and Disturbed themselves label themselves as hard rock, as do many of the fans. dude527 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Althought their own opinions have no meaning whatsoever. And that's why we put "alternative metal" in the box instead of heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.37.102 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Disturbed - Indestructible (2008).JPG
Image:Disturbed - Indestructible (2008).JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Divide" In Confirmed Tracks
Recently, someone has added the song "Divide" to the list of confirmed tracks... what is the source for this song? I've only heard about it once before, and it was on an early list of songs on M.O.L. (you have to look carefully)... Dan (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, now it's been referenced. Dan (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussing possible songs
Please discuss the list of songs rather than adding and removing it constantly. I've requested temporary page protection in line with this. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 19:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, seems like a better idea. I don't see why it keeps on getting removed, anyway. Dan (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well one thing I'm noticing is that the list in its present state doesn't seem to have a source, without that it's very difficult to argue for its inclusion. Do you know of such a source? ~Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The list is merely reiterating which songs are confirmed to appear on the album, all of which are stated in the main article. They are sourced through the main article from many interviews David Draiman has given.  It makes it easier to see all the songs put in one place rather than to re-read the entire article.  Dan (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then add the same sources to the items on the list and its problem solved. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be argumentative, but why is this necessary if they are already sourced through the article (indeed, right above the list)? Dan (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple, annon IPs are deleting the list because they haven't read the article, and therefore don't notice the references, they then delete it thinking it is speculation, repeating the references will bring the reference in to focus, and stop the removal of the list. ~Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 17:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when does wikipedia compromise its contents due to anonymous users? All the songs are referenced through 2 sources anyways, but I think adding a reference next to "confirmed tracks" would be sufficient.  I saw that there was one, but someone seems to have removed it. Dan (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * where does it say anything anywhere about the song divide being included? i see a source for the other song titles but the only thing it says anywhere about divide is that there are rumors that the track will be included. last time i checked unsourced rumors aren't supposed to be on wikipedia.69.212.157.72 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That probably should have gone under the other heading I've made, but whatever. So far, all I've seen about the song "Divide" is from a user named Ravensclaw2 on youtube, and so far he's been up to par with everything Disturbed (in fact, he's widely responsibly for distributing the bonus tracks from TTF on the internet).  Obviously, not a reliable source, but I am quite sure something will surface soon enough telling about the fates of both "Criminal" and "Divide".  For now, we should just slap a "citation needed" tag on it then wait a little.  Dan (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, also on the topic of Ravensclaw2, a user named TheDarkLordWesley221 posted a comment on his Youtube page stating he talked with David Draiman about both "Criminal" and "Divide" and he said there is a chance one of the songs might make the album and both songs will probably be released this year or next year as singles, bonus tracks,etc. Whether this is legitimate enough or not, I don't know. LonghornDude08 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also saw that comment... I'd say it's legitimate, what have they got to gain by lying? Also, they've been pretty reputable so far.  Unfortunately, we can't confirm anything just yet because Disturbed seems to keep quite secretive around the time of the newest albums' releases. Dan (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not to keen that this article should be relying on hearsay to develop, but I suppose its to be expected that it should have a slightly speculative feel before the fact. I really don't see this article going much further until the albums is actually in stores (for Dans reason above), but we still gotta comply that all information must be referenced properly... ~Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 18:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be a pain, I mean I like the idea of all the songs being listed in the same place, but there are no indications of any tracks being "confirmed". I vote we change it from "Confirmed Tracks" to something like "Possible Tracks" until time persists and Disturbed actually releases a true list of songs. That way all the people who want "Criminal" and "Divide" to be listed will be happy, and those who say those songs probably wont make it will be also be happy.LonghornDude08 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, good idea, I'll go ahead and do what you said. Dan (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems with that here. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not this again. Who removed the list and why? Dan (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What list... Wikipedia is being gay, andd whenever I edit the article, all I can see is from the beginning up to the point where I edited it...LonghornDude08 (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, not sure what your problem is, but the list I am referring to is mentioned in detail above. Dan (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, good, it's back. Also, if anyone is wondering, the reference for Perfect Insanity this Friday is on their myspace page... Dan (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is the length of "Midlife Crisis" known? It hasn't even been officially confirmed yet.LonghornDude08 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's been leaked on youtube... there's a bit of debate about if it's really Disturbed or not, but it sure sounds like them (listen with some headphones and pay careful attention to the vocals, really sounds like Draiman). If you want to hear it, go to YouTube and search "Midlife Crisis Disturbed".  If you want to download it, go to www.myspace.com/originaldisturbedfan ...Dan (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya, I know all about that, in fact I posted the second video with that same exact song. It's not from Indestructible, It's an old cover they did way back in the Sickness days.LonghornDude08 (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I knew that bass guitar sounded more like Fuzz than Moyer... well, I'm not sure then. Perhaps we should add that into the article, that they covered the song back in ~2000? Dan (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Façade
I don't feel like editing the article, but here's the reference for that new song Façade... http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/news/article/0,,4594154,00.html Dan (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Genres
I think we should just post what is on the actual album, which is Hard Rock. dude527 (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nu and Alt. Metal tags are fine (since they aren't heavy metal genres in the slightest), but the Heavy Metal tag needs to go and be replaced with a rock tag. Prophaniti (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people are still disregarding the tag that was placed and editing in "Heavy Metal". The tag should not be heavy metal.  The CD has it labeled "Hard Rock", as does the official website, and this is how it should be here.  Even in my own opinion, this is nowhere even NEAR heavy metal.  Anyways, I'll extend the tag posted, and if somebody violates it again, they will be treated as a vandal.  dude527 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit note added was completely unnecessary. You cannot treat someone as a vandal for an edit in good faith. Also, it doesn't matter what genre is listed on the CD or on the band's website. Wikipedia relies on reliable third-party sources. AMG lists Indestructible as alt metal and heavy metal, while I believe it is also hard rock. Anyway, we don't need a threatening edit note, it's uncivil and completely unnecessary here. Tim  meh  !  02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as threatening. It was intended as a warning, they would be treated as a vandal because the note was there and they defied it, that is what I would consider a vandal. dude527 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've been trying to add referenced genres an correcting the delimiters for the genres, but several editors (fanboys apparently) have been separating the genres by line breaks and removing my valid citations. Tim meh  !  01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You citations say "Genre: Rock| Style: Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal". And the line breaks make it look cleaner.  dude527 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The line breaks go against WP:ALBUM, and yes, the website says the album is heavy metal and alternative metal. AMG is one of the most reliable sources for genres, that's the only reason I put it here. Tim  meh  !  01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, but we only need one of the same reference. dude527 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, AMG is actually one of the least reliable sources, at least as far as heavy metal classifications go. Indeed, I'm in the process of gathering sources to prove just that. However, until then I personally won't be making any attempt to mess around with the genres here. Prophaniti (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to genres, which are subjective, a website cannot possibly be "wrong" in classification, therefore you can't "prove" that AMG is unreliable. Maybe a lot of the genres are inaccurate, but when it comes to wikipedia AMG is perfectly reliable and that won't change anytime soon.

Also, while it doesn't sound completely like traditional heavy metal, the album has huge influence taken from it, to the point where they are very close to heavy metal, perhaps closer to it than alternative metal. Of course, that's my opinion, but as there is a reliable citation for heavy metal it needs to stay there. James25402 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Genres are only in -part- subjective, there is also a strong degree of objectivity.
 * I can and indeed shall "prove" AMG is wrong. I'm in the process of doing so even now, and it very likely will change very soon actually. Until then, as I say, I won't attempt to alter it. Prophaniti (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find one thing "hard rock" about this album. Even the slow-paced songs are still basic heavy metal. If certain tracks on here are "hard rock", then progressive metal and just basic heavy metal don't exist either. They're just "hard rock". Some people don't want to face the fact that Disturbed's work is starting to attract the metal audiences, not just the rock crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalKommandant (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking it a bit too personally, Metal Kommandant. We don't use our own opinions when selecting genres, we use reliable sources and many reliable sources confirm that this is indeed hard rock. Would you like to challenge all the references we could come up with, including the official website one, that this is indeed hard rock? That might be a little bit hard for you to do. Besides, in my own judgment (since that's what we're debating), I can't find heavy metal in these songs.  As Draiman said, "We have too much melody going on."  The Guy  complain edits 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, if you want to get "technical," rock is the genre, heavy metal is the style within the genre. Rock is the main genre, which all the "sub-genres" (nu metal, hard rock, heavy metal, et cetera) joint off from. Therefore, it would technically be the most accurate to simply put "rock," as it covers all the genres said.  The Guy  complain edits 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you sound like you just inserted your own opinions as well, dumbass. Any "professional" review and "reliable" resource is just an opinion all by itself as well. It's all who you are. And you just supported his argument by saying that metal is just a "sub-genre" of Disturbed. You're exactly the kind of person he was talking about. Fucking hypocrites...
 * I want to ask you to please tone down the vulgar content of your posts, and please, no personal attacks. I inserted my own opinions, yes, as you might be able to tell from me typing "in MY opinion," but the difference is, I'm not trying to use my own opinions in the article.  I fear you misunderstand me, because I said metal is a sub-genre of rock, which it is.  Rock is the main genre, and metal, hard rock, alternative, et cetera, is all just sub-genres under the "rock" genre. Also, I fail to see where he's talking about people.  As far as I see, he's talking about genres, and the one mention of people says people can't accept that Disturbed is attraction heavy metal audiences.  The thing, though, is that, despite being opinions in themselves, reliable sources have a writing staff, and generally check over everything they publish multiple times before publishing it, making it more reliable than a single person's biased opinion.  You're "you supported his argument" argument, is also not valid, as he's proposing that we take out a genre, not add one.  Anyways, in conclusion, please tone down the content of your posts, and no personal attacks, please.  Thanks :)  The Guy  complain edits 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You happen to agree with this particular review, though I'm sure you wouldn't be so objective if you disagreed with it. The 'staff' may have agreed on something incorrect; people aren't perfect. Though I particularly disagree with Metal Komandant's statement about Disturbed being predominantly "metal", they really don't show much rock here...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser 4000x (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually do agree with it to an extent. Rules and sticking to them is my top priority. But you're trying to tell me that a reliable source, confirmed to be completely reliable, is suddenly not reliable simply because it's objective and opinionated by several people. That doesn't matter, though. If it were fact, it would, but it generally doesn't for something so subjective.  The Guy  complain edits 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now. It all depends on who you are to depend if your opinion is verified as fact; you have to be a professional. Otherwise, you're spat upon. Thanks for clearing that up! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser 4000x (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, seriousally, this is still going on? Its obvious that Dude527 is right and that they are Hard Rock. While some, including me, may argue that they are metal, Disturbed themselves regard themselves as Hard Rock and I'm pretty sure they'd know what their genre is. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What a band classifies themselves as is irrelevant. What if they called themselves technical death metal?  While sources aren't completely ideal, they are the best representation of a band's genre and must therefore be used.  Personally, I think we should keep "hard rock", "heavy metal", and "alternative metal" in no particular order. Dan (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Genre
I belive the album should be classified as alternative rock, hard rock, and nu metal (or alternative metal) i agree it's not heavy metal, but Disturbed has always been classified as some type of metal. Harlot666 (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For your consideration, there is already a discussion about this below; while we do appreciate your vote, please read the sections next time, thanks! =)  dude527 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Midlife Crisis
I'm going to put this straight hopefully once and for all... The version on Youtube is a cover they did back before they did The Sickness, for a Faith No More tribute album... The track has NOT been released to anywhere!!!LonghornDude08 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro
I made a grammatical fix to the intro earlier, but a new thought has occured to me now, if the album is set for June 3rd, is it really logical that the band are still in the writing/recording phase? &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 20:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not; now they're just building up anticipation for the release and doing marketing... It'd odd that they haven't released the album art yet though, isn't it? Dan (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly Ten Thousand Fists album art took a while to be released too (although the image of the Disturbed One was release very early on). I'll have a look for a reference stating they're defiantly in the marketing phase. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this http://metalnews.typepad.com/themetalreport/2008/01/disturbed-relea.html. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems good. Dan (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's about time we clean up all the old stuff on the article, like things that are confirmed or really old because reading it is starting to become a little confusing. LonghornDude08 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
I'm beginning to become slightly annoyed by the constant editing done to this article without merit. Most recently, someone attempted (and failed) to have this page show every Disturbed album in the infobox.

I'd like to request semi-protection until the album's release, June 3rd.

Razer922 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's definitely not enough vandalism to protect the page, especially until June 3. Usually page protection lasts from a few days to a month, depending on the level of vandalism. There's just not enough here to have it protected. Tim  meh  !  22:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With regards to the request filed at WP:RFPP: As Timmeh states, the vandalism is nowhere near the levels normally required to warrent page protection. Sorry, Talk Islander  22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am the creator of this article. Should I be taking control over this and waztching out for vandalism as creator? Nardulli22 (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Being the creator of an article infers no extra rights or responsibility's, however help with fighting vandalism never goes amiss. &#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow
I remember when I first created this page as "Disturbed's 4th Studio Album". Amazing how much it has grown. Nardulli22 (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, articles tend to do that...  21655  ταλκ / 01ҁ 18:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

B-Sides
There were fifteen songs recorded for the Indestructible album. The twelve on the album and "Run", "Midlife Crisis" and finally "This Moment". I know for a fact that "This Moment" is a b-side b/c I was at a Disturbed concert on May 2nd, and the band stated before they played the song "This is a b-side from Indestructible. It was on the Transformers soundtrack." So I vote that it should be added to the list of b-sides. Nineinchsin (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Couple things; This Moment was recorded before the other songs from Indestructible, and now with Parasite that makes 15 songs recorded, and the three bonus ones being Run, Midlife Crisis, and Parasite. Dan (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Still doesn't change the lead singer stated to a crowd of people from Springfield, MO that "This Moment" was a b-side. Besides, how do you know it was recorded before the other songs. They could have been recording since early last year. Or before, I mean it has been three years since Ten Thousand Fists. Also, how do we know 'Parasite' wasn't recorded after the end of the 'indestructible sessions'. Maybe we shouldn't list them as b-sides, but as additional tracks. Nineinchsin (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it was released on the Transformers soundtrack which was last summer. They didn't mix the tracks from the Indestructible session until January of this year. Which would mean they went into the studio while they were writing to record "This Moment" before they were in the studio during the fall/winter to record Indestructible. I mean, there were news posts on the Disturbed website that said when they went into the studio to record the new album. Of course David is going to call it a b-side. What else is he going to say? "Hey this is a song we wrote for the transformers soundtrack." That's just dumb. And going back into the studio to record a b-side just to put on the "Inside the Fire" single is just idiotic. They already had some b-sides left over from the recording session so why would they not use one of them? David specifically said they recorded 15 songs during the Indestructible session. the 12 on the standard album "Run" that is on the limited edition, "Midlife Crisis" which david confirmed in an interview and "Parasite" which is on the "Inside the Fire" single, that's 15 tracks.hav0xx (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Parasite
The newest BSide. Yes, I know there's lots of speculation that it's a BSide to Indestructible (In fact, it is). But, Wikipedia is reference-based. We can't post information that is purely speculation, unless you have the facts written somewhere, don't edit this. Look at Criminal, it was supposedly a B Side to Ten Thousand Fists. Yet they never released it, re-recorded it, and put it in Indestructible. How do you know they won't do that with Parasite? My point is, don't post this unless it's either A) Already released, or B) Announced officially. Dude527 (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's clips of the song on various websites, including: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpfwyL3sg70 and http://www.nuclearblast-musicshop.de/album_info.php?album_id=524986782 ... I believe that's enough proof... Dan (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Criminal" was a Ten Thousand Fists b-side that was later re-recorded. It doesn't matter that it wasn't released at the time or the original recording wasn't released, the point is it was a song the band recorded that didn't make the album. "Parasite" clearly didn't make the album, but even if it was never released or it was re-recorded for a later album, again the point is it was a song recorded during the Indestructible sessions that didn't make the album. But that isn't exactly the case since it's going to be featured on the "Inside the Fire" single. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but my point is sometimes things just don't make it on. For all we know, Parasite could still fail to appear on the single, that's why I think we should wait to put it up until it is released, just to be certain.  Oh, and YouTube videos are hardly convincing evidence, considering anybody can put videos on YouTube.  Oh well, I can't wait for this song anyways, I'm going to try and find some more information about it.  If I find anything, I'll reference.  How do we know this was recorded during the Indestructible sessions anyways though?  Can I get a reference for that?  Or are we just speculating? Dude527 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See now that is a good point. But all this time you've been saying it has to be released to be considered a b-side, which isn't true. If a song was recorded for an album but didn't make the track listing, whether it's released later on or it's never to be heard by the public, it's still a b-side by terminology. But you're right about no source saying it's specifically an Indestructible b-side, so okay it stays off the list until then. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my point was that there was no references for the song, at all. It was mysteriously listed there and I couldn't find anything on Google.  So, yeah, I think I was just misunderstood, miscommunication ftw... Anyways, if I find any information on it, that's a reliable source, I will post Dude527 (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

← There is no reason to doubt that "Parasite" is not from the Indestructible session. We have no idea if "Run" was from the indestructible session either and yet it is accepted. 1/2 of the stuff on wikipedia is not referenced. So if you're not going to go through and find every single sentence that isn't referenced in every article, stop fighting this one. If you can prove that it is NOT from the Indestructible session then by all means remove it. All information we have about this song points to it being a newly written/recorded song. It is on the "Inside the Fire" single, which is an "Indestructible" track. David has confirmed that there were 15 songs recorded, all of which are accounted for if you count "Parasite". There are no remaining b-sides from "The Sickness", the entire list of songs was revealed on the MOL DVD, including "Divide". Disturbed has never said that there are any more b-sides from "Believe" and all b-sides from "Ten Thousand Fists" have been accounted for ("Criminal" is on "Indestructible"). Until you have information proving that there is a b-side that is not accounted for then leave it alone. hav0xx (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then wait for there to be proof. We can't simply post something because of fan speculation, we need hard evidence, for track listing, it wouldn't matter so much if it was in the development section or something, but we need to get the track listing right.  We know Run is a b-side because it's listed directly on the official website.  There is nothing about Parasite there, though.  There are 3 b-sides on Indestructible, and it was actually announced that This Moment was one.  I don't remember where I found that, but I saw it.  The point is, although we don't have any proof it's NOT on Indestructible, we don't have any proof that it is either, therefore, it does not belong here.  It could be just a random song recorded for something other then a studio album, and released with this Single package to make people buy it; Korn does that a lot.  Find me some solid evidence, then I will allow you to post it, but if you can't then don't post it.  Read the Wikipedia rules, things MUST have proof on here, we cannot simply go by speculation.  If you refuse to comply, I will get this article protected, as you are breaking Wikipedia rules and vandalising an article.  I know you're trying to help, but a track listing on a website, is not compelling evidence. Dude527 (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll be going through this article and deleting EVERYTHING that doesn't have a source directly related to it. hav0xx (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just found something interesting. At http://www.nuclearblast-musicshop.de/album_info.php?album_id=524986782 it says "Parasite (Non-Album Track) 3:25". So, now there is a bit of evidence it's NOT on Indestructible, because the closest thing to our only source says it's not on the album. Dude527 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-Album Track means that it's not from the Indestructible Album. It doesn't mean that it's not from the recording session.hav0xx (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, this is as good of a reference we have right now. I'm pretty sure it's not from this album in any way. Dude527 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

← Except that http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/store/muze_new.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442176781&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028455&bmUID=1210982344555 says that it includes "another track from disturbed's fourth studio album" which if it's parasite means its from Indestructible. hav0xx (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, good job on finding that, hopefully we find something a little more solid so that we can post this song. Dude527 (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, nevermind, I just went out and bought the vinyl, hoping it was on there... The tracks are "Inside the Fire", and "Perfect Insanity"... No Parasite to be seen... So that reference counts for crap now... Sorry guy.  Dude527 (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Parasite HAS been released as a B-Side to Indestructible. You can buy it here: http://www.7digital.com/artists/disturbed/inside-the-fire-1   Today I edited the page to take into accoutn this new info (and sourced), but my edit was STILL deleted and I was warned. Now, that is bullshit. How much more proof do you need that I'm not "vandalizing". I own the song myself for god's sake. But, since I dont want to be banned from editing b/c some hot shot mod doesnt take the time to check my source (you know, his JOB) I ask that someone else please add this song to the list. halo0001X 01:46, 18 May 2008 (EST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.23.179 (talk)


 * Thanks for sending me the track, halo ;). However, we still can't add this to the list.  We know it exists, yes, but Wikipedia is no crystal ball yadda yadda and speculation has no place here, and, although there's a strong chance Parasite is from Indestructible, we still have no acknowledged evidence, no statements to say "This is a b-side from Indestructible", even if we do have documents that say "This is a song sold with a song from Indestructible."  Do you understand?  Dude527 (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh and I should add, J.delanoy, is not a mod, there aren't mods on Wikipedia. There are IPs, users, and admin.  And to clear this all up, J.delanoy and I are not, and I repeat, not, saying that Parasite isn't a b-side.  We are saying, there is no proof as of yet, and something with no proof obviously doesn't belong on a factual-based encyclopedia.  Dude527 (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

← Up unitl the mention of "Indestructible", disturbed fans have known the name of all disturbed's songs (released and non) since The Sickness. In all these years, a song named "Parasite" was never, ever heard of. Never even been reported as played. Then, a month away from release of their new album, this track is released for sale (with) songs from the album. >.> I mean, while we dont have a "crystal ball" as you put it to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this song is indeed from this album, all sings (ALL) point to it being so. We dont have absolute proof as to the unquestionable existance of "evolution" but all sings point to yes. I'm not saying that is something says otherwise we shouldn't remove/relocate it, I'm just saying that if it smells liken a dog and looks like a dog and sounds like a dog: 99% of the time it's a dog. Halo0001X 17:00, 18 May 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.23.179 (talk)


 * Yes, but what we're watching out for is that other 1% of the time. Although we have many things pointing to it being part of Indestructible, we still can't say, for certain, that it IS part of Indestructible, only with strong confidence.  Unfortunetely, encyclopedias are not based on strong confidence, but on facts.  Besides, the purchased track clearly is titled "Parasite (Non-album Track)".  Dude527 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It's not on the album, "non-album". Now, am I wrong or are not all B-Sides "non-album". Just because that site chose to credit it as a "non-album" track as opposed to a "B-Side" is just arguing semantics. Encyclopedias are based on facts, very true. So are science books. The things inside them are a collection of facts that best represent the content. Well, all of the facts that we currently have at our disposal tell us that this is an Indestructible B-Side. Hence, it should be listed. And, if (like also happens in PRINTED science books) our facts end up wrong (which is highly doubtful) then isn't that exactly why Wikipedia is so easily reversible/easy to edit? It would take all of 3 minutes to quickly fix the error. Halo0001X 22:47, 18 May 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.23.179 (talk)


 * I like how you have a nice, big vocabulary. An encyclopedia is not a science book, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can't post something, no matter how likely to be true it is, unless it is confirmed to be true, which this is not.  We have NO facts at our disposal, only speculation. Dude527 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we do have "facts". Quite a few of them to be honest. Fact #1: No one has EVER heard of this song before the release of "Indestructible" tracks. Fact #2: This track if for sale with other tracks from Indestructible. Fact #3: Disturbed recorded 15 songs for this CD, 12 of which are on the actual CD, and 3 B-Sides. Currently there are already 2 B-Sides listed, leaving one open slot. Fact #4: The track is found on the "B-Side" of the Inside the Fire CD UK release. Now, all of these are FACTS. We have have them, so as such we do have facts that point to this being exactly what it is: an Indestructible b-side. These things are not "speculation" as you claim, as all of them can be proven. Hence, based on the facts, this track should be listed. Halo0001X 12:46, 19 May 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.23.179 (talk)
 * All of your so-called "facts" are simply original research, which is not allowed. J.d ela noy gabs adds  17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, you just made me waste my time with facts I already knew, so I'll waste time with yours. Fact 1. Sickened was a UK-Exclusive track, Hell was US-exclusive, and Two Worlds was available everywhere.  Fact 2. "Run" is a US-exclusive, and "Parasite" is a UK-exclusive.  Fact 3: Disturbed usually likes to distribute their b-sides equally between the US and the UK, from experience.  In that case, Parasite would be a b-side to Indestructible.  However, there's a hidden fact.  Fact 4: Wikipedia does not accept unreferenced, unsourced, speculated, etc, etc, and beyond beliefs.  That last fact completely collides with the other 3, and it restricts us, so that, until Disturbed confirms that Parasite is a b-side, until we have a written, official reference, we cannot post it, no matter how many other "facts" we have.  Fortunetly, I'm fairly sure that that new website coming out, will have all the b-sides in it's content, sectioned, etc.  Therefore, if we find "Parasite" under "Indestructible b-sides", with "Run", and "Midlife Crisis (Faith No More cover)", or Disturbed officially announces it, we can't list it. Dude527 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, may I first state that I did not post my "facts" to waste you time, in fact I was sure you already knew all of them, but they needed to be restated to prove my point. I will now abandon my cause of getting this track listed, dispite the fact that all logical thinking and rational point otherwise. It honestly doesn't matter to me that the track is or is not listed, since I was only trying to make it easier for the "uninformed" disturbed fan to find out about this song. Either way, I while I still dont agree with the supposed "logic" put forth by both you J, I find that I don't wish to waste anymore of my time in a pointless debate in which neither side wishes to admit defeat. So, don't take my resignation as me admitting you were right, as I whole heartedly believe otherwise. But my true vindication will come when I or someone else finds a "source" where David goes onto youtube and speaks directly into the camera and says that "Parasite is a B-Side from Indesturctible" quickly followed by an under-the-breath "G*ddamn, do people need eveything spelled out for them?". And so, when that song finally rests in its long deserved place on the Indestructible wikipedia page, I will have my revenge...my sweet, sweet revenge..........Eh, I'm just messing with you, I dont really care anymore. :p Later man! Halo0001X 20:22, 19 May 2008 (EST)


 * We can't back down because there's regs, and we follow them. Trust me, I want to find a source as well, I want this song up, the trouble is it can't go up, not without a reference, as stated many a time by myself.  Anyways, you're saying you don't think following the rules and citing an actual source is right?  Because that's our "logic", and it's kind of the "rules" of Wikipedia. Dude527 (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if "Parasite" isn't listed in this article, the "uninformed" Disturbed fan can always find the song indisputably listed in the "Inside the Fire" article. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

On the amazon.com import version of the cd it says that it will include parasite under the editrorial section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosking91 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaks
If any leaks for this album come, before June 3rd, I'm going to say this now, do not post that the album has been leaked. This happened to Korn's Untitled, and it definitely decreased sales, because people started searching for the leaks. Dude527 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia of events that happen, and there is no proof that this website made a major impact on their album. When it leaks, I'll make sure the info is on this page. Nickoladze (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's like spitting in the band's face Dude527 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

More like spitting in the record company's face. The band generally doesn't get much from record sales.

And besides, whenever I download a leak I still get the album if I like it. If I don't, I've saved myself $10. =P Razer922 (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Disturbed once stated in an interview that they do not care about people downloading their music off the internet. Lords of Metal Interview: David Draiman. He put it simply "I have no problem with it, what so ever.".


 * Either way, I still buy every Disturbed album which is released. I prefer it that way. --сояdRдzіиз-effect (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think this page should be edited when (if) that occurs, but I understand I don't have a lot of choice. Dude527 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just edit it if any information on leaks appears on the main page. I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks it should remain unspoken. But either way, those who want to download it will find it on warez sites. : --сояdRдzіиз-effect (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cordrazineeffect, he never stated he doesn't have a problem with illegal, free downloading, he stated he didn't have a problem with people buying the songs online. Read it again.


 * He actually has stated many times that he doesn't have a problem with illegal downloading. He said it is the record companies fault for being so against the internet instead of adopting it early like they should have. I was at a concert right after the release of TTF in which he asked who bought the album, and then he asked who downloaded it. After he said that he said that if you downloaded it all he asks is that you share it with your friends. hav0xx (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice. I've never seen Disturbed live, and the closest I'm going to get is that internet show on the 29th.  That should be sick.  I've personally only sen Korn live...  3 times and all lol.  Anyways, I still don't think the public should know if a leak appears. Dude527 (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually as Hav0xx said, he has said it many times. While in that particular interview I agree with you, he didn't say that, but he has said before that he's fine with people downloading music illegally before. --сояdRдzіиз-effect (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand the big deal with posting leaks. The people who download leaked albums are going to download it regardless of whether it's up on Wikipedia or not. You are being naive if you think that posting a link on Wikipedia will make any difference, and extremely naive at that. You don't understand the workings of the internet, don't talk like you do. Jelco.galactaboy (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Be nice.  21655  ταλκ / 01ҁ 19:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who says it's naive to remove the mention that it was leaked? I know how often leaks are reported on Wikipedia, and when it's worth it I'll even follow up on the leak; then I buy the album. But the fact is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it has nothing to do with the workings of the Internet, it has to do with the workings of Wikipedia, and you are being naive to think that leaks have reserved their permanent place here. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said. Fact of the matter is that the link I provided in my edit is one people can normally not reach (the website in question can only be accessed while logged in and membership is invite-only). While it would still provide a source to prove that it has indeed leaked, it doesn't give people directly access to it. Posting info that the album has been leaked is perfectly in line with WP standards, it doesn't hold any less value than any of those points listed in the Development area. However, I will state that this is my own opinion, one that obviously isn't shared here (perfectly fine by the way, an opinion is your own). Jelco.galactaboy (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You realize that this album leaked to the website in question, but is now available on torrent sites, some of which you don't need even need to be registered with, right? Sure at the time you made the mention of the leak in the article, it wasn't publicly accessible, but it doesn't take long to spread to P2P networks and torrent communities. I'm not against leaks at all, I just don't think that the fact that it leaked should be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about the album. It would be nice to have more opinions on the subject than yours and myself though. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I totally agree with both sides, but it's only because I have the leak AND pre-ordered the limited edition, so I guess I'm on both sides. Regardless, whether or not the leak info gets on here, I guess I'm just glad it finally happened. User:Jigsaw 541


 * Alternatively, it could have been that Untitled was considered a flop among critics and the negative word hurt the album, Ten Thousand Fists was leaked and it didn't affect sales. As a middle ground, and knowing personally that it has indeed been extensively leaked and is now on every medium for free download available, I would suggest it be added the album was leaked after the June 3rd release. This wouldn't "hurt sales", and it would be encyclopedic, though I have no issue with adding the information or leaving it out, I could go either way in the argument really.Revrant (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)\

here is proof that it was leaked [LINK DELETED]


 * You should pay closer attention to this discussion. We all know Indestructible has been circulating the Internet since Tuesday, it's not up for debate and we don't need any further proof. It leaked, we know; this talk is regarding whether it is notable to mention the leak prior to the album's release in five days. And do not post direct links to album leaks on this page. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is notable for the leak to be noted, although no links to sites hosting the album should be shown, maybe just "the album was leaked on whatever date" after all, it is fact it has been leaked and isn't wikipedia about facts? 83.100.150.72 (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is fact, but it's not a notable fact at all. Dude527 (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection Request
I requested protection for this article, on the grounds that too many random IPs (And also many users) are editing in the song "Parasite" in B-sides, without references, besides a pre-order form of the CD that the song is on. They have no proof it belongs to this album at all, therefore I'm requesting protection until proof shows up. Dude527 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I hope that it gets protection granted sometime soon. There are way too many non-registered (and even registered) users adding worthless input to this article, so much that there has to be this giant section of hidden text that completely butchers the concept of proper formatting of a Wikipedia article, just so people like this think twice (or in this case several times) before adding information that does not belong here in the first place. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Request was denied. Dude527 (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's been semi-protected. Nickoladze (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I requested full-protection twice and they denied so about 1 week later, after tons of vandalism, I requested semi-protection, and they granted it until June 3rd. Dude527 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

To people adding info about future events
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Do not add material about future events without a citation. Any additions about future events without citations will be forcibly removed and the person who adds the unsourced information will be treated as a vandal. J.d ela noy gabs adds 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Album/Song Lengths
At that listening party on the 23rd, I'm going to go there with a stopwatch and a notebook and record all the songs lengths and the album's length. If I post those here, will someone take them off? Dude527 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, doing something like that, again falls under Wikipedia's policy against original research. With the album still having not been leaked, then if it were to do so, it wouldn't be too much longer before the track lengths from the physical song files can be posted in the article. The listening parties are taking place just about two weeks before the album's release which doesn't leave much time left for the album to potentially leak anyways, so we could go with track listings submitted through original research, or we could wait until the album itself has become available to observe, when it is leaked or officially released. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep I agree, it's original research and chances are that the lengths you record aren't going to be 100% correct anyway. It's only 2 more weeks until release, do we really need to know how long each track is ahead of time? hav0xx (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely not a necessity but it'd be nice to know and would aid the article, somewhat. Dude527 (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Midlife Crisis on Special Edition; source doesn't match
I just checked the source that says Midlife Crisis will be on a special edition, and its tracklist doesn't match up with the one we've come to know and is currently in the article. It's only 10 tracks and they don't even match up (it even has Run on it). Should we disregard this source as a "marketing mix up"? Razer922 (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On May 21, 2008, a special pre-order edition of this album was released in Disturbed's official webstore. This edition only featured 9 of the original tracks, but the tenth was the second b-side "Midlife Crisis". If you pre-order this edition, you can also save money on two shirts.
 * As the article indicates, it's apparently a special, 10-track edition of the album. I don't see how it could be a mix up. Incorrect ordering of tracks, or spelling mistakes are mix ups; the inclusion of two non-album tracks, going so far as to include the original artist for one of which is a cover is a pushing it a bit in terms of status as a mistake. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If it was a few typos or something, sure, but to expect them to make that big of a mistake: I doubt it. For now it seems pretty legit. Halo0001X 0:46, 24 May 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.23.179 (talk)


 * Why would it be inaccurate?? It's been up for 4 days now, so either A) they're dumb enough to not realize that they put a false track listing after 4 days, or B) They put a smaller track listing to make people but both version of the album + the shirts = lots of more money for Warner.  Now which do you think it is; A or B? Dude527 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Live at Riviera tracks
I was going to put this in the edit summary, but it became too long. Quotations are for song titles. For example, the official song name isn't "Stupify (Live at Riviera)", it's a version of "Stupify", performed live at Riviera. Including the version name in the quotations becomes inconsistent with the Wikipedia presentation of songs that actually incorporate a subtitle in brackets (for example, something like "Change (In the House of Flies)"; first example that popped up in my head). Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me the regs that it would become inconsistent with. And another issue, I believe "Midlife Crisis" should be in the "Bonus Tracks" section, Run is and it's included as a bonus on a version of the CD, and so is Midlife Crisis... I think either A) They're both on or B) They're both off.  Edit: Nevermind the "Midlife Crisis" thing, it's part of the main tracks of that version of the album...  I forgot, sorry.Dude527 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol that was my reason for removing it from the bonus tracks section; it's cool. I don't get what you mean by showing you what it becomes inconsistent with though, the example with the article I linked to made it pretty clear what I meant. I'm just saying that there are songs that actually have a title in brackets as part of the song's name ("Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", "Change (In the House of Flies)", "Heart-Shaped Glasses (When the Heart Guides the Hand)", etc.) and there are songs which have names without bracketed titles, but are still followed by them to indicate a specific version or such ("Stricken" (Live), "Only" (El-P Remix), "Another Brick in the Wall" (Pink Floyd cover)), the latter which applies to these particular Disturbed songs. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah... Well change them however you want, I don't mind... I'm too busy enjoying this album! Dude527 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Has it even leaked yet? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. Or that's the story...  ;)  Dude527 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think they could play it at Hot Topics all over the US without it getting leaked? (wink-wink) Powerslave (talk|cont.) 18:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, most Hot Topic played it digitally. But this is getting off topic. Dude527 (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just wondering what you meant by being busy enjoying the album. To my knowledge it hadn't leaked, so your statement just confused me. Anyways, that's all the clarification I needed. Is the album good? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is. You're going to love it come June 3rd. Dude527 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Songs available
So, I don't want to update the page just so someone can get rid of it right away, so that said, is anyone going to put up the fact that the songs are available at a few places now? Like, say "On May 27th the album became available online." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsaw 541 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because it hasn't become officially available online. There's a discussion about this going on in the appropriate Leak section. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bonus Edition Does Not Exist
If you go back to the page where the 10-song edition od the cd with "Midlife Crisis" and "Run", you will see that it was nothing but a misunderstanding, so I removed it. Do not add it again.
 * I suspected that was the case. I'm glad someone got confirmation of that. Good work. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Free Online Concert
http://www.deeprockdrive.com/event/5455/disturbed That should be mentioned, I was in attendance, they performed two songs from the new album, and David elaborated on the person from Inside The Fire if someone wants to find a transcript and look into adding that to the Inside The Fire article.Revrant (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They only played one new song, Inside the Fire. The concert wasn't really relevant to this album. I was in attendance too.  I also added to the Inside the Fire single article.  Dude527 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No...I'll remind you Perfect Insanity is a new song, and no, I don't care if it was previously made, I'm well aware of that, and I have that version, completely different songs and takes, and considering it was a promotion FOR the new album, completely free, and online, I'd say it's quite relevant. Sorry, wasn't signed in, I swear if Wikipedia would ever let me stay signed in. Revrant (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I forgot they even played Perfect Insanity, sorry about that little mistake. Dude527 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * both perfect insanity and inside the fire are great songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.178.148 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. This discussion is about mention of the online performance the band made, not about what you think of Indestructible ' s two singles. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Released
I changed the first paragraph to read "The fourth album" instead of "the upcoming fourth album." If there are any more future tense references that I miss, please change them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konraden88 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the album has been released digitally and is just two days from being on shelves, I think we should get rid of all the info about promotion and whatnot (like the Hot Topic listening party and the YouTube previews) since it really won't matter to anyone once the album is out. I'll do that soon if no one disagrees. Powerslave (talk|cont.) 16:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think all the info should stay, just in past tense. It's all still valid information. Dude527 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But just exactly how encyclopedic is it now that the album is out? Powerslave (talk|cont.) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's very relevant at this point. Before the album's release, it was almost filler, informing the reader about everything known.  Now, however, a listening party at hot topic or the fact that the band kept quiet for a while about the album does not seem important. Dan (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

IGN Review
I'm going to go ahead and say this before anyone adds it, I'm going to have to insist we only put up professional reviews, and considering this one was written by some intern, not a noted reviewer, was very unprofessional, mocked the band, insulted their talents, made mention of other "much better" acts in a non-objective manner, and gained a firestorm of rejection from the IGN Music community, especially considering how fair they were with Ten Thousand Fists, I'm going to have to state I am against having it on the article. Revrant (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The reviews that are there now are fine. However, we should add one or two negative reviews to keep NPOV. Tim  meh  !  21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the three out of five stars review is a good example, unless someone can find as professional a review with a negative score, I've had trouble finding any myself, usually you would have to go to an extreme metal focused site to get a negative score, but it wouldn't be professional at all.Revrant (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Genres
I think we should just post what is on the actual album, which is Hard Rock. dude527 (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Nu and Alt. Metal tags are fine (since they aren't heavy metal genres in the slightest), but the Heavy Metal tag needs to go and be replaced with a rock tag. Prophaniti (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, people are still disregarding the tag that was placed and editing in "Heavy Metal". The tag should not be heavy metal.  The CD has it labeled "Hard Rock", as does the official website, and this is how it should be here.  Even in my own opinion, this is nowhere even NEAR heavy metal.  Anyways, I'll extend the tag posted, and if somebody violates it again, they will be treated as a vandal.  dude527 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The edit note added was completely unnecessary. You cannot treat someone as a vandal for an edit in good faith. Also, it doesn't matter what genre is listed on the CD or on the band's website. Wikipedia relies on reliable third-party sources. AMG lists Indestructible as alt metal and heavy metal, while I believe it is also hard rock. Anyway, we don't need a threatening edit note, it's uncivil and completely unnecessary here. Tim  meh  !  02:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as threatening. It was intended as a warning, they would be treated as a vandal because the note was there and they defied it, that is what I would consider a vandal. dude527 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I've been trying to add referenced genres an correcting the delimiters for the genres, but several editors (fanboys apparently) have been separating the genres by line breaks and removing my valid citations. Tim meh  !  01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You citations say "Genre: Rock| Style: Heavy Metal, Alternative Metal". And the line breaks make it look cleaner.  dude527 (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The line breaks go against WP:ALBUM, and yes, the website says the album is heavy metal and alternative metal. AMG is one of the most reliable sources for genres, that's the only reason I put it here. Tim  meh  !  01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, but we only need one of the same reference. dude527 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, AMG is actually one of the least reliable sources, at least as far as heavy metal classifications go. Indeed, I'm in the process of gathering sources to prove just that. However, until then I personally won't be making any attempt to mess around with the genres here. Prophaniti (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to genres, which are subjective, a website cannot possibly be "wrong" in classification, therefore you can't "prove" that AMG is unreliable. Maybe a lot of the genres are inaccurate, but when it comes to wikipedia AMG is perfectly reliable and that won't change anytime soon.

Also, while it doesn't sound completely like traditional heavy metal, the album has huge influence taken from it, to the point where they are very close to heavy metal, perhaps closer to it than alternative metal. Of course, that's my opinion, but as there is a reliable citation for heavy metal it needs to stay there. James25402 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Genres are only in -part- subjective, there is also a strong degree of objectivity.
 * I can and indeed shall "prove" AMG is wrong. I'm in the process of doing so even now, and it very likely will change very soon actually. Until then, as I say, I won't attempt to alter it. Prophaniti (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find one thing "hard rock" about this album. Even the slow-paced songs are still basic heavy metal. If certain tracks on here are "hard rock", then progressive metal and just basic heavy metal don't exist either. They're just "hard rock". Some people don't want to face the fact that Disturbed's work is starting to attract the metal audiences, not just the rock crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalKommandant (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking it a bit too personally, Metal Kommandant. We don't use our own opinions when selecting genres, we use reliable sources and many reliable sources confirm that this is indeed hard rock. Would you like to challenge all the references we could come up with, including the official website one, that this is indeed hard rock? That might be a little bit hard for you to do. Besides, in my own judgment (since that's what we're debating), I can't find heavy metal in these songs.  As Draiman said, "We have too much melody going on."  The Guy  complain edits 00:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, if you want to get "technical," rock is the genre, heavy metal is the style within the genre. Rock is the main genre, which all the "sub-genres" (nu metal, hard rock, heavy metal, et cetera) joint off from. Therefore, it would technically be the most accurate to simply put "rock," as it covers all the genres said.  The Guy  complain edits 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you sound like you just inserted your own opinions as well, dumbass. Any "professional" review and "reliable" resource is just an opinion all by itself as well. It's all who you are. And you just supported his argument by saying that metal is just a "sub-genre" of Disturbed. You're exactly the kind of person he was talking about. Fucking hypocrites...
 * I want to ask you to please tone down the vulgar content of your posts, and please, no personal attacks. I inserted my own opinions, yes, as you might be able to tell from me typing "in MY opinion," but the difference is, I'm not trying to use my own opinions in the article.  I fear you misunderstand me, because I said metal is a sub-genre of rock, which it is.  Rock is the main genre, and metal, hard rock, alternative, et cetera, is all just sub-genres under the "rock" genre. Also, I fail to see where he's talking about people.  As far as I see, he's talking about genres, and the one mention of people says people can't accept that Disturbed is attraction heavy metal audiences.  The thing, though, is that, despite being opinions in themselves, reliable sources have a writing staff, and generally check over everything they publish multiple times before publishing it, making it more reliable than a single person's biased opinion.  You're "you supported his argument" argument, is also not valid, as he's proposing that we take out a genre, not add one.  Anyways, in conclusion, please tone down the content of your posts, and no personal attacks, please.  Thanks :)  The Guy  complain edits 01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You happen to agree with this particular review, though I'm sure you wouldn't be so objective if you disagreed with it. The 'staff' may have agreed on something incorrect; people aren't perfect. Though I particularly disagree with Metal Komandant's statement about Disturbed being predominantly "metal", they really don't show much rock here...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser 4000x (talk • contribs) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually do agree with it to an extent. Rules and sticking to them is my top priority. But you're trying to tell me that a reliable source, confirmed to be completely reliable, is suddenly not reliable simply because it's objective and opinionated by several people. That doesn't matter, though. If it were fact, it would, but it generally doesn't for something so subjective.  The Guy  complain edits 02:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Emptiness" and "Mine"
These are the ONLY TWO UNRECORDED TRACKS, I REPEAT: ONLY TWO UNRECORDED TRACKS. I'm looking at the screen with the whiteboard on it now, and there's no "My Insanity" or "Destruction", so anybody adding that to the list anymore is a vandal! If you don't believe me, go watch the DVD yourself, and pause when that whiteboard comes up! Anyways, it's just making me mad that people are re-adding that, when they have nothing to back themselves up, and I know they don't because I'm looking at the screen right now. And don't add the unrecorded songs to the "b-side" section, either, because they were never recorded, and never part of the track listing. dude527 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've watched the DVD numerous times and I have seen both My Insanity and Destruction. My Insanity can be seen as number 2 on the whiteboard (when it's not What Da Fuck lol), and "Destruction" is mentioned in a text message where it says "Do you think using the world or titling a song, indestructable [sic], is a problem?  Considering that we have a song called Destruction?" (this can be seen at 48:37).  Adding them back into the article now... Dan (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I still believe My Insanity is a pun, like "Oh my, I'm going insane trying to name this", mainly because it was "What De Fuck?" before, which was a pun. dude527 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I really doubt it - My Insanity sounds legitimately like a Disturbed song, but I bet they simply didn't put it because they wanted Perfect Insanity and those two titles would be tedious (same with Indestructible and Destruction). Regardless, it was definitely written and as such deserves mention. Dan (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The only times Emptiness, Mine, and What De Fuck were mentioned in the article was when I added in the chart where these titles can be seen. You see one time when I was watching the DVD, I paused when I saw the chart, and wrote it down. Today I transferred my notes to Wikipedia, so now anyone who doesn't have the DVD can see the chart. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits are incorrect. Read my comment above for when the other songs appear. Dan (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The song "What De Fuck?" was a pun. And I'm strongly suspecting My Insanity is too.  Also, "Destruction" was re-titled "Run".  My evidence: Well, listen to how many times the word "destruction" is said in the song Run.  And they said something about not wanting a song titled "Destruction" in an album about being Indestructible, which would explain why the song "Destruction" was not on the whiteboard, but Run was.  It wasn't a separate song, but they just re-titled it.  I mean they never said that they haven't recorded Destruction, they just texted that the name seemed kind of wrong.  We have no proof either way, so I'd suggest leaving Destruction off of the list. dude527 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very possible, but we have no proof. I will add "Destruction" back but mention it may have been renamed to "Run" due to the reasons mentioned above. Dan (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AllMusic
I'm a bit stunned to see there's literally no AllMusic review, just a rating and two track picks, they've always reviewed Disturbed's albums in the past, as it isn't an actual review should it be removed until one is posted or just leave it up? Should one not be posted I think it should be removed in the future. Revrant (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I added it to the article after they officially posted it. Revrant (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

one of the few
I removed the band System of a Down from the list of supposed bands that have released 3 back-to-back number 1 albums, since if you actaully look at their releases, they go: System of a down: 124 billboard Toxicity: 1 billboard Steal this Album!: 15 billboard (!) Hypnotize, Mezmerize: 1,1. There's no three straight top debuts here..looks like whoever wrote that article messed up a little. If you want a ref just goto: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/retrieve_chart_history.do?model.chartFormatGroupName=Albums&model.vnuArtistId=272600&model.vnuAlbumId=746535 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.37.102 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know. The only reason that band was added was because the reference I stated said that.  I mean when I put all that there, I copied and pasted directly from the article. dude527 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, I wonder how Billboard made that mistake, unless they didn't consider Steal a full album, who knows. Revrant (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reference is untrue, so it should be either removed or edited.71.162.39.172 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

nu metal....
its not numetal. the citation for its numetalness as a genre says its not. and i quuote : "the dreaded nu-metal tag that followed the band out of the turn of the century SEEMS WHOLLY ERADICATED." that means they are no longer numetal. so should i remove it or not? i was gonna but i saw the nice hidden note.. so someone discuss with meh! 68.103.28.224 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One gripe I have is please learn to type with correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Also, somebody must have just added that nu metal because last night the citation was behind heavy metal, not nu metal.  So I took it off. dude527 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Metacritic
I'm going to remove the Metacritic link, I'm going to have to insist that only professional reviews be placed on the article, good or bad, and Metacritic tallies many snotty, quip-laden magazine reviews as opposed to legitimate, professional reviews. Revrant (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Yes but the 57/100 fairly represents the album imo 86.5.200.85 (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the point, Wikipedia policy states Metacritic shouldn't be used as a ratings device, but instead as a meta link to the various reviews should they qualify to be featured. Revrant (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone
I'm removing the Rolling Stone review, when a reviewer doesn't even listen to an album long enough to comprehend the meaning of a song, and yet still comment on it, I can't consider that professional, it also has the same smarmy quip-laden approach as IGN I think Wikipedia should avoid in professional reviews. Revrant (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rolling stone is a very notable critic, and the review cannot be removed just because it is negative. I have reverted your edit. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you to read line "Professional reviews", the Rolling Stone review isn't professional, they didn't even take the time to look into the meaning of a song and yet felt the need to insult it all the same on some vague assumption as to it's meaning, I think many would agree that is quite unprofessional. Notability is absolutely not the bar for reviews, they are "Professional reviews" not "Notable reviews". Revrant (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia considers Rolling Stone to be a good source for reviews. I really dislike them, their reviews are usually very unprofessional and inaccurate, as in this case.  Despite this, you'll notice on most albums on wiki there is a Rolling Stone review.  Oh well. Dan (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not right to remove it because it's negative. And with the "assuming song meaning," you're wrong - Inside the Fire is about his girlfriend's heroin addiction, which caused her to commit suicide.  Aside from that point, bands want people to take in the meaning of a song in their own way, not just the meaning the band sees.  This review is not unprofessional, it gives the reviewer's opinion of the album, although I won't hesitate to admit, there are a few personal attacks in there.  As per listening to an album long enough to understand the song, I answered part of that, another part is you only need to hear or see something once to review it, and not all reviewers should be die-hard fans, or we'd get biased reviews.  I think that the review should stay, as it expresses the reviewers opinion, Rolling Stone is a notable reviewer, and a negative review is somewhat needed to maintain Wikipedia's neutral PoV. dude527 (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If one more person insults my intelligence by claiming it's because the review was negative I'm going to ignore further posts on this talk subject. I will reiterate and state for a THIRD time it's about it being an unprofessional review, they are not a good source for "professional" reviews, much as the other popular magazines(which are similarly refuted) aren't, simply because they are "notable" they are included in Wikipedia, well the others are just as smarmy and get their information wrong yet are not included, I do not care for double standards.


 * Well you're absolutely wrong Dude, the song is not about her heroin addiction at all, the song is a Faustian tale with the voice of the devil speaking to David post-suicide, as he himself and other members of the band have confirmed. There is no need to listen to the song over and over, but simply look it up instead of assuming, insulting the band with smarmy quips, and moving on to the next album, that is unprofessional.


 * I will state, yet again, notability does not equal professionalism, and I just realized a professional review with a less than stellar score was removed, I intend to reinsert it, as I fully support ALL professional reviews, and intend to zealously protect any article I come across from unprofessional reviews regardless of the source.Revrant (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When asked by a fan during the DeepRockDrive Concert, if Devon was really his girlfriend, Draiman replied: "That wasn't actually her real name, in "Inside the Fire", a lot of people have asked what that's about. It is actually, unfortunately about a true incident of suicide that happened when I was a young kid, about 14, [or] 15 years old. I had a girl who was a heroin addict and, on the wrong path and got obsessive compulsive, became way too attached and wanted to tell my parents about our relationship that I wasn't allowed to have, I was going to a religious boarding school at the time, and I wasn't even allowed to talk to a girl, let alone date a girl. Couldn't see movies, couldn't read newspapers, couldn't, had to bless before I ate, after I ate, pray three times a day, all that kind of stuff. But, unfortunately, she took her own life, and it's been something that has haunted me for a very, very long time."


 * See? The heroin addiction was part of what drove her to suicide, and that's what I meant.  I am still going to argue that this is professional.  The review states what it does not like, and why.  It adds a few bits of critisism but, other then that, it is an OK review, and noteworthy in the article, and Wikipedia does not looks for professional reviews, but notable ones - by notable reviewers.  Professionalism has nothing to do with Wikipedia's standards on this subject -it's all about notability. dude527 (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was watching that concert, I'm fully aware of what David said, but that is NOT what the song is about, therefore the reviewer is blatantly wrong. Second, the review is inflammatory and unprofessional at points, and third, you just contradicted every article on this site. Over the reviews it does not say "Notable reviews", it says "Professional reviews", if Wikipedia's standards were "Notable reviews" we'd only have popular magazine reviews and no professional reviews. The article, as it stands, is entirely professional reviews with no popular magazine reviews, therefore "Professional reviews" stays true, and so long as Rolling Stone can't use google before deciding on the meaning of a song it's supposedly reviewing and refrain from using obnoxious, petty remarks, I doubt many will consider it "Professional". Revrant (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reviewer isn't fully wrong, just doesn't see the whole truth. The song is about his girlfriend's suicide, which was induced by drugs.  So far, 3/4 users stated that this review belongs here, 2/4 want it here.  This is not your article, and the talk page is for reaching a consensus, which, so far, has not been done.  It hasn't been decided if the review stays or goes, so leave it alone until we do reach a consensus, leave it up until then. EDIT: That was directed at everyone, not just Revrant. dude527 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'll admit that I hated reading that review, I believe it must stay there, for the main reason that it is notable. Sure, the reviewer is a bit of an ignoramus (I disagree with the IGN part though), but that's people for you.  21655  ταλκ / 01ҁ 18:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're wrong again, the song is not about his girlfriend's suicide, it is about his immediate reaction to said suicide, and the voice of the devil speaking to him, convincing him her path is the only way to reunite with her, it has nothing to do with the drugs. Her direct suicide is the reason for his feelings and thus the lyrics, but it's not the subject at hand, and thus he was absolutely wrong. No users have reached any sort of consensus so your numbers are faulty.


 * I reiterate, yet another time, until you personally change Wikipedia policy to that of all reviews being notable and popular, then I urge you to not use that flawed defense, again, it says "Professional" reviews, not "Popular" or "Notable" reviews, a good example of non-professional reviews lie with Rolling Stone and IGN, IGN is incredibly notable, but the review is horrid and smarmy, this goes for numerous other magazines who use Rolling Stone and IGN's weasel tone. I do not see anyone fighting for these magazines because they are popular and notable, why is there a double standard? Revrant (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia goes for popularity and notability, not professionalism. The reason being if someone sees the Rolling Stone and recognizes them, they are more likely to read it then something by a reviewer that they didn't know existed. Wikipedia looks for notability to catch people's eye, because if we don't catch eyes, nobody will view things. dude527 (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet again, it says "Professional" reviews, not "Notable" reviews, and if someone goes to a review and sees a smarmy, unprofessional review with insults, misinformation, and quips, when they see "Professional" reviews on a Wikipedia article they will no longer trust Wikipedia's collection of reviews. Wikipedia looks for professionalism in it's reviews, not notability, as is evident in all other reviews on the article as well as, right above them - "Professional reviews". Furthermore the majority of articles feature very professional reviews, as is the Wikipedia standard, I see no explanation as to why you feel notability and popularity have suddenly become the status quo when that was never true. Revrant (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In case someone cares or didn't notice: I reinstated the Rolling Stone review again, and at the same time removed a couple of reviews that did not seem notable. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please attempt to respect the discussion happening as of now, and yet again, notability is not the driving factor in Wikipedia reviews, thus I would ask you to refrain from wildly editing away reviews and inserting others based on absolutely no consensus. Revrant (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox was very clogged. The reviews i have removed offer no evidence of professionalism, nor notability (two things which are, in this one case, sort of tied to eachother). Also, at least one of the reviews was a blog post which did not even reach the alexa traffic rating scale, making it a violation of WP:EL. This was the last time i have reverted you. If you decide to go on again and re-add the spam (and that is what it is), please, do so without messing the box up. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 13:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability and professionalism have little to do with each other. Only one of the reviews was a blog post, and the Alexa traffic scale has buck-nothing to do with a violation of WP:EL, the blog part does. Weasel words in use I see, "spam", please refrain from the use of inflammatory wording and I'll do my best to not mess the box up. :) Revrant (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is where you're very wrong, Revrant. Notability is a driving factor for almost everything Wikipedia has on it.  You can't put every detail of something into an article, only the notable things, you can't make an article for every song from an album, only the notable ones.  You can't make an article for every band, only the notable ones.  Same goes with reviews, you should only add the notable reviewers, and if I'm wrong about that guideline, show me where it says "Professionalism -> Notability", please.  dude527 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet again, you are absolutely wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability you will notice that nothing as subjective as a review could be notable under Wikipedia's guidelines, and considering how many articles cite non-notable sources, such as scientific pages that site studies no one has heard of or would normally know to look to. Your view of popularity over professionalism is against Wikipedia's guidelines obviously, you could look at many other articles and figure that out, please do. :) Revrant (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You would add a review of a clearly insignificant source, but remove Metacritic (alongside of RollingStone)? You must get your facts staight. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 21:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, "insignificance" has nothing to do with reviews, and I would encourage you to actually take the time to read the rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ALBUM#Non-professional_reviews please refrain from including Metacritic as any sort of rating device as specified by Wikipedia guidelines. Revrant (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you realize taking the review off or putting it back up is considered vandalism until we reach a consensus? Stop taking it back down until we have reached a consensus, all this does is start an edit war.  That page you showed me doesn't direct me to the crap I need to see from you for me to allow you to take it down.  So far, all I see on Wikipedia is non-notable information, articles, etc being taken down for them not being notable.  I am not absolutely wrong about that, you still need to find me somewhere on Wikipedia where it says "Professionalism -> Notability," I'm sure if it's a guideline, it exists.  But all I see on Wikipedia is all about notability, not professionalism.  Also, as I already said:


 * USERS: Stop modifying the review section until we have reached a valid consensus. Violation can be considered vandalism. dude527 (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit I retaliated to his removing of the other reviews, he has no basis to remove two of them as they are multi-purpose sites with personnel who review just albums, and the Rolling Stone also functions as a blog with other personnel in similar capacities, so that's a poor excuse.


 * Otherwise, I never said Notability defuncts Professionalism or vice versa, merely that Notability(or rather popularity in this case) is not a defining factor in album reviews, I'll type this once more, popularity is not a defining factor in the adding of reviews, professionalism is. Wikipedia "allows" an incredibly large amount of unprofessional, smarmy, quip-laden sites and magazines with only a few that are at all professional. I am seeing a complete double standard in practice when it comes to those sites and magazines, you fight for Rolling Stone but it's contemporaries are ignored for obvious reasons, simply because it is the most popular it's clear faults are ignored? Secondly Metacritic, according to Wikipedia standards quoted above, should not be given as a source of rating or review as it currently is on the article - or any other album's article, yet it is, there is no argument with Metacritic. Revrant (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Rolling Stone review clearly belongs here as per the reliable sources policy. I shall pull a quote.  "[...] we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."  The Rolling Stone is a very reliable source, and professionalism has nothing to do with notability.  Notability is more important then professionalism.  Case closed.  The review goes back up, and the non-noteworthy reviewers come down. dude527 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a very clever, selective quoting of the policy, let me correct your quoting below. Revrant (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why there is even an argument on this. WP:ALBUM lists RollingStone as a review source you can use in the infobox. It meets the criteria of being a reliable source and it is a review that is "found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff." It meets all the criteria for being a good review site. How can anyone give a convincing argument against putting this review on the page? The review rating the album badly is not a valid reason for non-inclusion. Tim meh  !  23:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Timmeh: the argument being given is that because the article is "non-professional", it asserts no notability. dude527 (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet again someone insults my intelligence by claiming it is about the rating, no, please refrain from that kind of nonsense. When the Rolling Stone can't even offer a review of The Sickness, but instead a nine paragraph diatribe that mentions the band only in passing, it ceases to be a reliable source in that instance. I could argue the same for Ten Thousand Fists, which it failed to review and instead spat out snippet that was a skimpy paragraph in length. What's worse is the Rolling Stone can't even bother to get anything right within ONE paragraph, they called Ten Thousand Fists their fourth album when it was in fact their third, and they never cared to correct themselves. This marks the SECOND time they have made a dire mistake with just a Disturbed album review and it is extremely unprofessional and damages them as a "reliable" source.


 * There is no "case closed" I already demonstrated the double standard in play, many awful review sites are listed as "okay" under Wikipedia standards, yet no one adds them because they are extremely unprofessional, smarmy, and inflammatory, the Rolling Stone is added simply because it is so popular, Wikipedia does not practice double standards, people do. Revrant (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Revrant, you're fighting an up-hill battle now. Find some way to prove to us that the review doesn't go there, or it stays.  And it being "unprofessional" is not a reason, as Wikipedia looks more for notability then professionalism.  So, step up, do some research, find some reasons why, even though Rolling Stone is listed as a OK reviewer on the list, that they don't belong there.  To clarify: Rolling Stone is listed as a good, reliable source, and if you want it down, do some research, and find a guideline to exploit.  Until then, it stays.  dude527 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm hitting a brick wall because there's an appalling double standard everyone seems content to practice. Yet again you are blatantly wrong, I have done my research, I have quoted, linked and done everything in my power to reason, yet you specifically keep shoving in my face "Notability" even after I showed many review sites and publications aren't judged by notability, they are judged by popularity, two extremely different, though sometimes associated, things. Thus I will quote this from the very policy you linked, I like how you failed to quote this specific point "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", the review in question is inaccurate and did not even bother to check it's facts, therefore the individual review is in violation of the policy at hand, as is the Ten Thousand Fists review, and as is The Sickness review, and simply because the name Rolling Stone is popular does not excuse it from this violation as you would like it.


 * I'm not going to be replying to you specifically when you're being repetitive and ignoring all the information I'm presenting to you, the review is in violation of the policy of legitimate, accurate, professional, fact-checking reviews, and is popular, not notable, it passes on but one front, and therefore does not qualify to be featured, I might also note that despite Wikipedia guidelines the Metacritic link is still featured, an interesting lack of vigor for defense of that policy by everyone fighting "for" this policy. Revrant (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at WP:ALBUM sites. Due to their proliferation and dubious value, lists (e.g. Rolling Stone's 100 Greatest Punk Rock Albums of the Early 1980s) may not be included.

The reviews should be listed alphabetically in the Reviews field. Start each one on a new line, beginning with an asterisk (*). The first bit of info should be the name of the source (most commonly a magazine like Rolling Stone—note that magazines are italicized).

The second bit should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use the star rating template, for example, entering, will render: 4.5/5 stars4.5/5 stars4.5/5 stars4.5/5 stars4.5/5 stars. For reviews by Robert Christgau you should use the Christgau review template, for example, entering Robert Christgau [ ], will render: Robert Christgau (dud) link. Numerical ratings, letter grades and other non-symbol ratings should be shown using plain text in parentheses, like (3.5/10), (B) or (90%). If no rating is given in the review you should use the word (favorable) or (unfavorable) to describe the review, possibly allowing for (ambivalent), (mixed), (extremely favorable) and more, but keep it short and simple. If you cannot summarize the review, just leave this second bit blank.

The third bit is preferably a link to the actual review on an official page; it may also be a summary of the review located elsewhere (if the original publisher doesn't include it online). The link should display as the year that the review was published. If you cannot find the year of publication, the word link will suffice. If there are no online sources, you may include no link at all, but must then cite the information properly. The citation should include the full date of publication and preferably the page number.

Include no more than ten reviews. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews.

There's the standards. It says nothing about having to be written professionally, just that it has to be written by a publication that has a professional writing staff. Which, Rolling Stone does. To the point, it says nothing about having to be written professionally, Rolling Stone is on the list of trusted reviewers, it passes WP:ALBUM, and WP:RS. Whether you like it or not, unless you have any other relevant information, this discussion is closed, and this review stays. dude527 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for showing me what I already know and again, ignoring my previous information "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." directly from Wikipedia, the review did not check it's facts, and thus is inaccurate, please address this fact instead of quoting the entire policy and ignoring my information, and again, reiterating the exact same point for what is likely the thirtieth time. Revrant (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts aren't valid in reviews, as they are based on opinion. A bit redundant from my other points, but it's true; reviews are based on pure opinion, so fact is not exactly needed in them.  I will re-iterate, though that The Rolling Stone is on the list of trusted reviewers, it passes WP:ALBUM, and WP:RS.  And please making smarmy comments about me "ignoring" your points, when what you're doing to mine is the exact same thing.  dude527 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

 * Gracious, what world do you live in where Wikipedia's own guidelines are not true? "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." directly from WP:RS, the fact of the matter is the meaning of the song is well known, has been discussed by more than one band member, directly explained by the lyricist and is therefore fact. The reviewer did not bother to check his facts, and made an inaccurate claim that damages the reliability at hand. You are ignoring my comments, you have ignored my information dutifully since the start and continually reiterate the same thing over and over again, let me clear this up for you.


 * You are placing an immense, undue portion of importance on the idea that Notability is the reasoning behind adding a review, when in fact, directly from WP:Album and I quote "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view.", it does not say "requirement" it does not say "must", or "insists" or "has to" it is merely a consideration, to be considered, as in something to be kept in mind in the decision making process. This is, by nature, not a requirement, not the deciding factor, and not even a must in Wikipedia's own policy, it is just a consideration, and you are giving it extreme importance where it plainly has none. I might add if you shove it in my face for the umpteenth time I will refrain from attempting to make any more points with you or discussing this topic further with you, I have eyes, I can read, and you have a full reply with Wikipedia policy quoted in support of my argument, there is no reason to stick it in my face yet again. Thank you. Revrant (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot to point this out as well, all of the review sites currently in use fit perfectly into Wikipedia's guidelines barring only consideration of notability, and the list Wikipedia gives is not inclusive, but only an example of sites that are considered to be worthy of inclusion so as to help decide what to add. Revrant (talk) 10:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point I had is that the WP:RS, as I just recently figured out, is mainly for citations. A review is not a citation, is completely opinion-based, and is not, by any means, to be taken as fact.  It is in no way a source of factual information to anything in the article, just a review, made by a person, on what they think of the album.  Completely opinion.  How it's meant to be.  And, also, notability plays more of an effect on anything in Wikipedia, then you obviously see.  I already declared this topic closed many times, and I already told you, too, that I didn't ignore your replies, I simply replied to them.


 * Also, you have no argument, as of here. You want to take a review down because it's unprofessional, and, frankly, it doesn't have to be professional, at all, as I already stated.  I've already asked you to find me somewhere on Wikipedia where it says "Professionalism > Notability," so far, I see one quote, from me, that says to consider the notability, not the professionalism.  Wikipedia, believe it or not, does rely heavily on notability, for all its articles, references, reviews, whatever you want to name, it plays a heavy role.  And I don't see how my quote is in support of your argument at all.  All I see is what you just quoted, too.  Shall I re-iterate, yet again?  "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view," it never says consider reliability, or professionally written.  It says notability.  That alone shows the emphasis Wikipedia places on notability, and it does say that non-notable reviewers are not allowed.  I've proven my point to you, and what keeps happening, is we keep coming at each other with the same points, over and over.  This review stays.  That is the end of this discussion, because you're the only one who has thus far objected, and your argument isn't exactly a solid one, with only one or two conflicting details, and a whole couple pages of ones that go with this, not to mention the Rolling Stone is listed on the reliable reviewers list.  dude527 (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what you meant by mainly for citations, I was under the impression that it was for all content, and I would normally absolutely agree, but when the meaning of a song is fact as expressed by it's lyricist long before any review was written, I would think that the review must have that fact in mind and have done a little research as their supposed reliability would suggest. I'm not under the impression that a normal Wikipedia browsing person can declare a topic closed, but alright, and I will have to disagree, this entire sequence of posts is largely you ignoring the information I present and reiterating Professionalism vs. Notability again, and again.


 * Such as...right here, for the umpteenth time now, I never said one was greater than the other. Professionalism would be included in "fact checking, and reliable", which is one of the things that is mentioned as desirable by Wikipedia. Wikipedia, judging by the sample reviews, relies heavily on many kinds of review systems, ranging from magazines to entertainment websites to even obscure little music-exclusive sites. I'm under the impression you didn't read what I said after quoting it, it is mentioned in passing and only marked for consideration, not as a requirement or need to post said review. Wikipedia has already emphasized professional writing in one of my previous quotes, fact checking and reliability are not automatically linked to notability. I would like to correct you yet again, it is not a "reliable reviewers" list, it is an example list of reviewers that fall under what would normally be considered reliable and acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines for reliable, fact-checking, astute reviewers. Revrant (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, people, I looked at the source and at all the arguments for and against them. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that Revrant's primary argument against including the Rolling Stone review is because it is not very professional. I'm sorry, but professionalism has absolutely no bearing on whether a source is appropriate. Rolling Stone is not the only reliable source that uses coarse and unprofessional techniques. That webpage is used as a reference in Extreme Paintbrawl. Basically what I am saying is, (and I don't know how to be more tactful that this, but...) Revrant: You are flat-out wrong. The professionality of a source is meaningless. The reliability and reputation of a source is what matters. Rolling Stone is a reliable source and there is nothing wrong with including their review in the article.

That being said, this is an encyclopedia, not a professional critic service. I do not recommend that you quote that source verbatim in the article. May I suggest that you include something like this: Rolling Stone gave the album two out of five stars, stating that while the album had "clear pop appeal in its own dour way", it was not particularly innovative, being very similar to many other albums that have been released in the past few years. Bottom line: Regardless of exactly what you put into the article, Rolling Stone is a reliable source and something about their review should definitely be included. J.delanoy gabs adds 14:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry, but games and music are wildly different mediums, I happen to own that very game, and I can say it is indeed one of the worst games ever made. I can sit down and play a game and objectively tell you what is actually wrong with it as opposed to music, which is preference, so please do not compare the two. You incorrectly interpreted my argument, it has nothing to do with coarse language. I imagine if you had read the review in question and read the previous replies you would know that it is because the review gets it's facts wrong, and that is not a reliable, fact-checking reviewer, thus it is not a good review to include. Please diligently read the previous replies before making a blanket statement such as "flat out wrong", I may remind you that although a publication may be reputable, it does not prevent it from making mistakes that damage that reputation. I am entirely agreed that, as with Metacritic per Wikipedia guidelines, the review should be of mention in the Reception section, it should not be used due to faulty facts, as a featured review. Revrant (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did thoroughly read the review, as well as the discussion above. You are correct that reviews of music are different than reviews of video games, as musical preference is 100% empirical. However, this only strengthens my position because the only reason you have given not to include their review is that they are incorrect. I fail to see any evidence to back up your claim. A review such as the one Rolling Stone gave really can't be incorrect, because it is based on their own personal opinions and interpretations. Why do you not want their review included? J.delanoy gabs adds  15:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We already covered this, I realize that normally music is subject to interpretation, but the fact of the matter is, as dude was nice enough to quote, the lyricist himself explained the meaning of the song long before the review hit, and the guitarist discussed the meaning of the song long before the album hit, and the reviewer didn't bother to check anywhere as to what the song meant, he interpreted it as having to do with drugs. Had this been any other song on the album, I would have been fine with that, but when you go against the lyricist and his stated meaning of a song, stated up to a month beforehand by other members in the band and easily found by fact-checking, you cease to be professional and therefore reliable. What backs up my argument further is their review of Ten Thousand Fists, barely a paragraph in size the reviewer didn't even bother to fact-check what album it was, calling it their fourth album when it was in fact their third. The Rolling Stone offered up a third horrible review for The Sickness, a diatribe on nu-metal in general with only a passing mention of Disturbed, and therefore not even qualifying AS a review.


 * Those two examples back up how unreliable Rolling Stone is when it comes to reviews specifically involving Disturbed, and this third mistake just furthers my claim, they chose to be unreliable, dismissive, and involved in the review process enough to purposely choose not to check the facts involved with this band, and that violates a third party, objective guideline as stated by Wikipedia too. I might add I am, again, not bias against any specific publication, their review of Believe was decent if not anything special, but three times they have chosen to neglect a review for a band. This hurts how objective they are when they can't do simple fact checks or do actual reviews simply because of the band in question. Revrant (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. I really don't know basically anything about Rolling Stone or Disturbed as a whole, and I have literally no knowledge about this album, so I am probably not in the best position to argue about it. I now do not know whether the review should be included or not, but I will have to leave it to you guys to decide. To me, regardless of whether what Revrant says is true or not, this argument seems to be a waste of time. If Revrant is incorrect, then Rolling Stone's review is correct, accurate, etc. In that case, there would not be much (if any) collateral damage to the article if the Rolling Stone review was not included. However, if what Revrant says is correct, there could be a fairly considerable amount of damage if the Rolling Stone review is included. Either way, I think that this argument is rather causing way to much drama over a very tiny issue. J.delanoy gabs adds  15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's been rather extensive and dramatic myself, but this isn't an open and shut case obviously, in many instances of discussion they are. Revrant (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's getting too personal. We need to cool it down a bit, then continue.  I don't think in either case, the review would be too detrimental to the article, at all.  It's one fact that it gets wrong, and it isn't a fact about the article in question.  I could see, if it was on the article for the actual song, how that could cause damage, but for Wikipedia we just use them for their ratings, someone has to actually visit the site for the content itself. dude527 (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire point is it's damaging to their credibility, it's a blatant mistake that a notable, reliable critic wouldn't make, and then would fix if they did, Rolling Stone refuses to do either, so just as a review it's damaging to feature them. I have to say, indeed it was getting heated, there doesn't need to be a "cooldown" at all though, you just need to actually consider what I'm saying and stop throwing the same thing in my face over and over again while ignoring my information, J. here came in out of nowhere and instantly saw what I was trying to say and the point I was conveying after a few posts, yet I had to throw an entire arsenal of quotes, policy, and general convincing to get you to even consider it, and even then it was brutally difficult.
 * There's just something wrong with that. Revrant (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From Dictionary.com:
 * "ig·nore
 * 1. to refrain from noticing or recognizing
 * 2. Law. (of a grand jury) to reject (a bill of indictment), as on the grounds of insufficient evidence."


 * I noticed and recognized your points, so the word "ignored" wouldn't be in it's correct useage. I just didn't think it mattered because, as I said, the reviewer is listed in the list of reliable reviewers, and I didn't think reviews were supposed to be based on fact.  In other words, in my brain I didn't ignore them, but I didn't verbally acknowledge them.  I still do believe this review belongs here, but I'm not going to argue about it anymore, as I see your points, and you see mine.  We need to come to a valid consensus, for this discussion to close, though.


 * Also, J. didn't come from nowhere, I asked him for his opinion, because he has been rather helpful to me before on Wikipedia, so I gave him the review, I gave him the facts, and I gave him a basic rundown of both of our arguments on his talk page, and then provided the link to this page and asked him to check it out if he'd like to. Anyways, now onto a consensus. dude527 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews are not supposed to based on fact, but if there is fact within the review, or any content, that fact needs to be checked, and the matter is, Rolling Stone has twice now not fact checked Disturbed album reviews, and will never correct themselves. I think that's damaging to their credibility, non-bias, and notability, and thus Wikipedia's as well, and our arguments are done with.


 * I read your post there, your wording was a bit off kilter, but so I see why he came in, and I think a consensus is near. Revrant (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

←In my opinion, the best course of action here would be to simply not include the Rolling Stone reference. Regardless of its validity, its non-inclusion does not affect the article very much, if at all. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, though hoping to accommodate those that insist the review be in the article, it is worthy of note in reception if not a featured review due to prior assertions, and if this reaches a consensus I would gladly add it. Revrant (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RIAA Certification (And Other Question)
Just curious, if the album has surpassed 500,000 sells then why hasnt it been certified as Gold yet? And this one really doesn't matter and I know it's been talked about already, but should System be on the list of 3 consecutive debuts since their three #1 debuts were not conescutive? 216.12.108.119 (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Criminal
How do we know that Criminal is a b-side from Ten Thousand Fists? Yes, it does sound like a song that would be written during that time period. But how do we know that is is a b-side from TTF? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The same way we know that Parasite and Run are b-sides here. Various (old) interviews. I'm not sure where, but I mean, how else do you explain that I knew about the song in 2006? dude527 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I never heard of the old interviews. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Old interviews are like new interviews, only their old. Zombified22 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that. I just don't usually pay attention to the interviews. And I wasn't a Disturbed fan back when TTF was released. Hearing Inside the Fire prompted me to download the two singles from amazon.com. I'm a Disturbed fan now, I just don't pay attention to the interviews. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well hmm, you weren't a Disturbed fan for old interviews, but you are now. So how can we prove that Criminal is a b-side from TTF? Hmm, well you could still try the old interviews! Besides you cant do anything about it, it'll just get changed back under a stupid argument and you'll loose. Thats generally how it goes... Haroldandkumar12 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I already said, there were citations for these, and Criminal has been proven to be a b-side, but what's likely to have happened, was that it was an interview on the internet, and the website deleted the article, so the citation got deleted. But it's been proven, so no citation is needed, but if you can find one, great. dude527 (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said Criminal wasn't a b-side. I'm not trying to win a bitter argument, or change where it says it's a b-side. I was just wondering how it was proven to be a b-side, having never seen or heard of those interviews. I knew Criminal had to be written during the TTF sessions (I have both TTF and Indestructible), I just didn't know how everyone else knew. I knew it was a b-side, I just wanted to know how everyone else knew, since I'm a rather new Disturbed fan (I've only been a fan for a couple of months). I'm sorry if you misunderstood me. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)