Talk:Riot V

Please don't delete my edits
Tony Moore is back in Riot. He's announced it on message boards, in emails and now on his side bands official website as cited. RockCharm (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong
Write primarily about music. Their work is important, not their relation with publishing companies. 78.0.87.200 (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: their relationship with publishers is inseparable from the band's musical history. What if Capitol had not dicked them around on Fire Down Under - they would have really built on Narita and would have seen great success. As with so many bands, success or obscurity usually hinges upon the publisher's whims, not the band's talents. Dlchambers (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Record
At the end of the 'Early History' section it says "mostly to support Hagar (who Capitol realized had made the wrong record and was losing his fan base)". Which record of Hagar's was that? I do recall Hagar fading a bit around that time, but which album was 'wrong' and why/how was it wrong? Dlchambers (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rockworld
I think that Riot performed the theme song to the circa 1980 syndicated U.S. video music show Rockworld.

This fact should be added to the article.

72.82.192.248 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The final paragraph in the "Breakup, the 'Reunion' & Mark's Passing (1983-2012)" section
There seems to have been some recent dispute over what should be present in the final paragraph of the "Breakup, the 'Reunion' & Mark's Passing (1983-2012)" section, which has recently been edited by myself, Jacktobe, Mightytior, and L1A1 FAL. I think that it would be best if we tried to explain why we think that the article should be in whichever preferable state rather than continue to arbitrarily modify the article without any such disscussion.

I think the paragraph in its current state does not seem to properly adhere to Neutral_point_of_view and Verifiability. For example, the phrase "but his legacy and his music will remain forever" seems to be a nebulous opinion, not a fact, and even if it is not an opinion, it is no way verifiable. Sjrct (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Riot V/ Band name Change
Since they have been renamed, I think an article migration to a page called Riot V would be suitable. Any objections? Vortiene (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved it. Lemme know if there's any objections. Vortiene (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please change the page name back to Riot. All of the band's major work (albums) from the 1970s-90s were released under the name Riot. What you did is like if somebody changed the page name of The Doors to Riders on the Storm because two remaining Doors members toured as Riders on the Storm. Repkow (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly find it offensive that this page has been renamed to Riot V. The band that we all know and love, the one that made history, is Riot and that was Mark Reale’s band. Riot V is just a couple of guys (not even from the most relevant lineup) cashing on his legacy. Purple74 (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparent Band Name Change Controversy
This page is meant to discuss both the band Riot and the current Riot V. A change in name of the band, whether the original creator of Riot approves of this change or not, still qualifies as a name change. The members within Riot V have indicated they want to continue from the separated Riot. Even if the founder of Riot is not a part of it, this still qualifies as a continuation of Riot, hence the page itself has been renamed. If you have reasons to add content to the page that discusses this controversy, please cite them with reliable sources. (To be honest, whether Mark Reale would have approved of this change is not something that can be discovered, as he has died as of 2012. Hence, going on with a band of the same name would be disrespectful to his legacy. I think this is why they changed it, but regardless of what the true case is, this information is still relevant to the article, and should not be removed.) Also, the subject of the page is stated at the header of the page, there is no need to express that the page is specifically about the original band, since the band has been resurrected as Riot V. It matters not what opinions exist of this change. The fact is, this change exists, and by witholding that information from wikipedia, you are intentionally hiding important information regarding the band, controversial or not. If you are that concerned with the controversy, consider contributing to the article by adding a section about the controversy that is reliably sourced instead of blanket-removing content potentially related to an opinion on this change in the band's lineup and name. Vortiene (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

RIOT Information Controversy
This page is for the band RIOT but is no longer together due to the fact that its founder Mark Reale passed away in 2012. There is NO original members from the band RIOT, also the founder Mark Reale’s father Anthony Reale has made it very clear to any ex-members of any line up of RIOT can Not use the name RIOT. And it clearly has both on their official facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/riotrockcity ) and website (http://www.areyoureadytoriot.com/) saying RIOT V. Do not get this band confused with the band RIOT, as this is a totally different vision and direction of the band RIOT and does not reflect its founder Mark Reale’s view or vision. Now yes it may sound like the band RIOT..why someone would want to sound like someone else is beyond me but it is the fact.

The band RIOT V should create their own wika page and not tried to ride on this great bands legacy. This clearly belongs to its founder Mark Reale. To just go and change the title of this band’s page is ridicules and IS disrespectful to Mark Reale and his father wishes. RIOT V is NOT a continuation of Riot. That name cannot be used any more by the wishes from the founder’s father and as you clearly state “Riot V have indicated they want to continue from the separated Riot” shows that the source is creditable and should stand. If they can’t use the name RIOT, would you think they can just change someone else hard work and lifelong legacy information?

Clearly they ‘RIOT V’ should start their OWN wika page. This is not an opinion, it is facts. Just because some ex-members start a new band to try to caring on some other bands sprit does not classify them as RIOT, it’s a new band with new direction and vision(this is fact). This would be like is some ex- members of Led Zeppelin started a new version of Led Zeppelin and goes and changes the “Led Zeppelin” wika page to Led Zeppelin 5. Even if its relevant to the article, you don’t change the bands title or try to say that it’s been resurrected. You should clearly start a new wika page, but you could refer yourself as past members of that band but you are clearly different form its original founders vision and direction.

So please do not change my information I post about the band RIOT. (talk)

It does not matter whether a founding member of the original band approves of a continuation of a band or not. This is still an iteration of the same band. It does not matter if the "vision" is different. This band still continues from members of Riot. A name change of the original band matters not what an ex-member things of the band. What you should do is add a section about the controversy that is reliably sourced instead of blanket-removing content potentially related to an opinion on this change in the band's lineup and name. You have not provided any reliable sources regarding the changes you have made to the article. Hence, reverting them is reasonable, in this case. I apologize, but if you continue to commit these changes to the article, I will have to bring up the 3 revert rule. Riot V is a continuation of the band in every respect. It has a similar name, and past members have been carried over except for the diseased Mark Reale. The article itself has been changed in name since people looking for information on Riot and Riot V will be looking for the exact same article, as the current, up-to-date information on Riot, and Riot V, in a reliably sourced manner, is what wikipedia strives to provide, as it is a notable band. Vortiene (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I've submitted a 3RR report on this matter. I don't want to get into an overly heated argument, bringing in third parties may be the best option. Vortiene (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ---

The information I post about the band RIOT is true and can be confirmed by legal documentations regarding why no other members of this band can use the name RIOT. It does matter if a owner approves of any changes and or its estate. Anyone can still continue on with whatever they won’t but you’re dealing with copyrights and RIOT V cannot use the name RIOT due to its estate wishes and copy right laws. This is NOT the same band clearly. You should not blanket-removing content potentially related to an opinion on this change in the band's lineup and name. Because this is your own opinion and cannot be legally confirmed. All reliable sources have been posted before mine but yet you blanket-removing our content. I apologize too, but if you continue to commit these changes to the article, I will have to bring up the 3 revert rule as well and provide Legal documentations to wika if needed! Riot V is a NOT in any way a continuation of the band RIOT, they are just copying what has already been. No… they are trying to link there band to a band that has already been…thus trying to ride on some others history. When a user is looking for the band RIOT, they are looking for that band…not some other band that’s trying to sound like them and do not have any right to that bands name.

This would be just likes Dio’s wika page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dio_(band)) if Dio's Disciples decided to changed the DIO’s wika page to Dio's Disciples. Even tho they were ex-members of the band DIO and sound like DIO and is stated on DIO’s wika page, its still DIO’s wika page and not Dio's Disciples! This is the same with RIOT and the band RIOT V! Jacktobe (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a different case, as there is still considerable discussion of Dio's Disciples in the Dio page. If the page was called Riot simply, rather than Riot V, but discussed in detail Riot V, I wouldn't mind. But you are removing the entire coverage of Riot V, which is my issue here. This is the same band in that its members are largely similar. There are plenty of examples of bands going on with past members after a single member of the band dies. A minor name change does not constitute voiding any further discussion of the band on the article. As soon as you state "they are riding on some others history" you are hitting it right on the mark, your removals are based on opinion. The coverage is reasonable, it discusses notable information about the band that does not constitute a secondary article. In fact, what you have pointed out regarding Dio confirms further that it should be discussed within this article, since it's not a large enough amount of content and significantly different in subject to be featured on a separate page. If the name of the article itself is the issue here, I'm not against changing it. I'm simply against completely avoiding discussion of the continuation. Vortiene (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Jacktobe's arguments seem to me more like a personal opinion than encyclopedic basis for edits. Specially "trying to ride on some other's story". Wikipedia is not a forum and not a place for personal judgement of subjects. Do reliable sources consider them to be the same band or two different bands? If they are separate, are both notable enough to have separate articles or is only one of them notable and the other should just be mentioned on its page? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Further Discussion, Request for Comment Related to Riot V
There's a couple of questions that need to be answered on this article: 1. Should we include information on Riot V, or create an entirely different article for Riot V? 2. Should the article be called Riot V, or simply Riot (band)?

These need to be discussed as there is obviously some dispute as to whether Riot V should be discussed or not, as per the above information. I'm getting a Third Party for this, and hopefully can receive additional input on the matter.

Vortiene - I think that Riot V is a direct continuation of the band, not a separate entity, and hence should be discussed within the article. I am open to calling the article either Riot (band) or Riot V, but I need good reasoning to understand why calling the article Riot V would not be the best choice. I am not biased towards either the old or new members of Riot, in fact, I don't think I have ever listened to their music. I just think that relevant information regarding this band in its 2014 state should be enclosed within the article. Vortiene (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Separate articles
We need two separate articles, one for riot, one for riot V. How is this the same band if all of the originla members are gone? David grohl is in the foo fighters and tho he's a former nirvana member, the band still isn't called nirvana, so why is this still even considered the same band? I'd say riot should be listed as an associated act of riot V too. 99.124.140.139 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the above or get a second opinion from another wikipedia member. I've already stated my opinion on this matter as have other members. Vortiene (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As a neutral 3rd party who has never edited this page before, I vote for either a new separate page for Riot V or at the very least, changing the name of this page back to Riot. Riot is what the band was best known as and is what the majority of people looking for information on them will search for. Riot V may be a "continuation" of Riot, but they aren't Riot, and Riot's wiki article shouldn't be altered because a new band wishes to continue on with Riot's music. DragonsDream (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The band's name is "Riot"... naming this wikipedia page "Riot V" doesn't make any sense, and is totally misleading. Riot V is a new band formed by two ex-members of the band Riot; therefore should have its own wikipedia page. Again, Riot and Riot V are two different bands. This would be like renaming the Thin Lizzy wikipedia page as "Black Star Riders"... nonsense. The band Riot, with all its different eras, starts in 1975 and ends in 2012, being Immortal Souls their last album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.25.200 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Riot V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110807214409/http://www.markreale.com:80/html/ORnews.htm to http://markreale.com/html/ORnews.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402231615/http://www.riotrockcity.com/web/pages/news/news01.php to http://www.riotrockcity.com/web/pages/news/news01.php

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Riot V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715191631/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=111557 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=111557
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715191640/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=131418 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=131418
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714035447/http://www.markreale.com/html/ORnews.htm to http://www.markreale.com/html/ORnews.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=161883
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130505193730/http://www.spv.de/News/newsdetail.php?newsID=136 to http://www.spv.de/News/newsdetail.php?newsID=136
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040119055452/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=16592 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=16592
 * Added tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=116141
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110421055154/http://www.riotrockcity.com/ to http://www.riotrockcity.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Nick lee
Is he still working with Riot V ? 50.45.48.49 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)