Talk:System of a Down/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that everyone links to this article here on wikipedia for the Father Armeni reference. Is this valid? As far as I can google there is not another mention of Father Armeni or his poem anywhere on the internet. Have you guys started an urban(wikipedian) myth? Faraz

A simple google query revealed to me this page: http://www.answers.com/topic/system-of-a-down it mentions Father Armeni. Also, can someone confirm that the band were going to call themself P.L.U.C.K? I read this a long time ago somewhere. Oh and please sign your posts with a timestamp. Opiax 16:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is Chop Suey controversial? --Sam Francis

My guess is that it had something to do with the lyrics "I don't think you trust in my self-righteous suicide", which may have been deemed inappropriate particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Someone should confirm this before adding to the article, though. --Iceager 05:11, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ah, [1] explains it. It is to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks, Toxicity was released the week before and as well as lyrics that must have seemed directly relevant, Serj also made (controversial) comments: [2]. This should be mentioned here, but explained in detail at the Toxicity page, I think, since it was so relevant to the album release. --Sam Francis

I can't seem to find anything linking 'Chop Suey!' to Lynn Strait of Snot. I was wondering if anyone out there could find any evidence like an interview with Serj. I can't. Admittedly, the lyrics seem to leave open the possibility of it being a tribute to Lynn but I'm skeptical that "I don't think you trust in my self-righteous suicide" has anyting to do with Lynn's death. It seems odd that SOAD would connect Lynn's death in a car accident with any phrase mentioning suicide. -->Chemical Halo 22:37, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I don't know anything about linking Lynn to "Chop Suey!', but they have a soundbite of his (at least on my mp3) in the track, 'Starlit Eyes', right before the music starts.

Are we sure about [Chop Suey!]'s origin? I thought it was simply a play on the word "suicide," since that was considered too controversial a title for the song.

I think I'll remove that part, since no one replied and it seems made up, to me. MrHate 02:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Genre

I think the debate about SOAD being nu metal/not nu metal in the opening paragraph needs to be reviewed desperately as it makes the article as confusing as the debate itself. Currently the phrase "eclectic metal" is plastered all over the page which needs to be removed. I've never heard of "eclectic" metal and it sounds to me like something someone has made up. Any thoughts on a re-write? MrHate 05:50, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well... thanks for your input :P I've re-written the nu metal argument which is hopefully pretty NPOV. I also moved it out of the opening to the page because it isn't required in a short bio/history of the band. I've also removed the mention that 'System are nu metal because they use downtuned guitars'. I'd removed it previously but was added back. Almost all metal bands use downtuned guitars, nu metal or not, it is a characteristic of metal in general. Adding to that, System don't even really down tune, as most of their songs are in the (almost) standard drop D (DADGBE)... a tuning used by most rock bands as well as metal. If anyone has any comments, please let me know :) MrHate 02:48, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


They use CGCFAD. Nadavspi | talk 16:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who linked to Cigaro?

Regardless, I removed it. We don't need to get in any kind of trouble here. Still a good track. -Ghost Freeman 19:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't link to it, but I'm pretty sure that link to Cigaro is an "official leak". That is, I think that site was put up by "official" sources and isn't anything illegal. I don't know this for fact, but I'm pretty sure they released it before they started their Australian tour. MrHate 23:21, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
And other outlets claim that Cigaro was leaked. Regardless, I think it's in the best interest of all to keep it off the article. People know where to get it. --Ghost Freeman 20:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is on the news site of the SOAD fansite SOAD Online and I am pretty sure it is an official leak, since it is on some radio stations. --Biohazard 07:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MESMERIZE IS FIRST

I'm getting tired of changing these edits around, So let me put this very plainly... MESMERIZE IS THE NEW SOAD ALBUM ARRIVING IN APRIL. Before changing edits that someone already edited a mere hour earlier, please check your facts. Just in case it's still not clear, here is a snippet from an interview posted on SOAD Online:

System are calling Mezmerize/Hypnotize a double album, although unlike Smashing Pumpkins' Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, for example, the first half (Mezmerize) is due in April, followed by Hypnotize six months later.
"Mezmerize" is going to have plenty of material, and we want people to sit with it before we give them the second one," frontman Serj Tankian said.

I'll also add that Cigaro is not a single (as according to the same site) and while we can expect that BYOB probably will have an accompanying video, it shouldn't be listed in the article just yet as it hasn't been announced (unless it has and I've missed it) MrHate 03:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Are you people insane?! I'm getting to the point where I simply cannot keep correcting the incorrect information on this article. for the last time: MESMERIZE IS FIRST AND CIGARO IS NOT A SINGLE. For anyone that needs further convincing, I have a print ad for Mesmerize including the April release date that I would be happy to scan if it means stopping the vandalism. MrHate 22:34, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

It has been called to my attention that some revert warring was going on here, though it seems to have died down at the moment. Please note the existence of the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule, which I will enforce if necessary (and which applies even if you are right) by blocking editing privileges for anyone who breaks the rule. Thank you for having cited a source, Mr.Hate. Michael and anyone else involved, please cite a source for your edits. Mr.Hate's version appears to be confirmed by several sites that I have spotchecked. Thusly, I have removed "Cigaro" from the list of singles and switched the release dates of Hypnotize and Mezmerize, as well as changed the spelling of the latter (which is incorrectly spelled if one is talking about the word, but that appears to be the spelling of the album for whatever reason). I was unable to confirm the release date of September 27 for Hypnotize. If anyone disagrees with these edits, please cite a source. Revert warring is not allowed on Wikipedia, so if there is a dispute, we will need to discuss it here. If necessary, I'm sure the band's official webpage can be e-mailed, and they will presumably confirm whatever info has been released, and any speculation or rumors can be attributed to those who believe it. I repeat that revert warring is not allowed -- this is not a guideline or suggestion, it is a rule that governs this website and is not negotiable. Tuf-Kat 03:11, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have not changed the articles on the albums because they are protected and doing so would violate policy. If no sources are cited soon, however, I will change them appropriately. Please add sources, without commentary, just below here. (looking closer, I've found conflicting info) Tuf-Kat 03:17, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Grr, someone's wrong. I'll try emailing the band's website. Tuf-Kat 03:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, a major print advertising campaign from Sony is underway for Mesmerize (citing an April release date). It's in an issue of Kerrang! that I have. Surely that's enough to confirm this confusion? MrHate 22:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Blabbermouth featured a story this morning that confirms a May 17 release date for Mesmerize as well as some song titles. See the article here [21] MrHate 22:02, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten a response to my e-mail, but I find this pretty convincing. Michael, have you found anything very authoritative? I'd like to unprotect the album pages as soon as possible. Tuf-Kat 22:26, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
Adding another link (from mtv.com) that says Cigaro is *not* a single. So far no one has listed a single source that says Cigaro is in fact a proper single. Nadavspi | talk 03:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, KROQ (the station in my city) played "Cigaro" once, that's why I've always been restoring it. -- Mike Garcia 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please visit the 3rd link, to mtv.com which says "One of those songs, "Cigaro," was recently leaked online and became an instant hit on KROQ-FM in Los Angeles as well as other stations. Another song, "B.Y.O.B.," will actually be the first single." Now, I am in no way saying that mtv is a clear, definite source, but since it is a fairly respectable source, and that article quotes the band, and we don't have any sources that say that Cigaro is a single, I think it's safe to leave it out of the article. Nadavspi | talk 03:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alright, cool. Thanks for settling this :-) Nadavspi | talk 03:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come on now, has anyone in the band actually said that opera is an influence on their vocal style? This sort of sounds like speculation by someone who doesn't know opera... --Bumhoolery 01:29, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mesmerize singles

Seems to be a lot of singles out for Mesmerize if one were to look at the list in this article! However, BYOB is still the only single. Let me just clarify. Even if a song has been on the radio, it doesn't make it a single. Try to remember that in future :) MrHate 05:56, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)


Aren't they also heavily influenced by Faith No More?

Tabloid edit.

I changed the nu-metal paragraph. Reasons for this is because it sounded too tabloid.

"Are they nu metal?"

And I remember reading somewhere, using "some say" etc. isn't very neutral. It's better to say "group X advocates support etc, because." I dunno, change it back if I'm wrong.

Uhh.. forgot to sign this as well.. oops! --coblin 20:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism (?)

This page should be protected as soon as possible to stop 66.36.140.178/66.36.141.203's vandalism by removing information about Mezmerize. I reported both of the users about the protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where you find "System of a Down (again!)". -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, nevermind that you have already been blocked recently here [22] for this stuff, it looks like you won't learn. 66.36.141.203 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
66.36.141.203, prepare to leave this place or explain to me why you're removing some info about Mezmerize, so that I don't keep getting upset with you. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Mike, no problem, check my edit summaries for details on why. 66.36.141.203 00:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I did look at your contributions, yes. But you're still not explaining the meaning why you keep removing some info about Mezmerize, you either do that or leave this site. I don't want to get into a fight about this. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The reason is pretty clear, you have to cite your source for the information. I don't want to get into a fight about it either. 66.36.141.203 00:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't care what you want me to do and you are not welcome here. You either explain the meanin why keep removing some info about Mezmerize or prepare to leave, I asked you that 3 or 4 times to do what I told you. But you keep refuse to exactly what I told you to do, so do it right now! -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The reason I removed it is because it was unsourced and probably unnecessary. 66.36.141.203 00:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
So stop removing it and leave Wikipedia now. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that Mike added was a compromise position statement. Please leave it in. Danny 00:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have even been the one who wrote the sentence in question, which (as you said) was an attempt at a compromise between bickering parties in a pointless edit war (like the one that's going on now). I do favor keeping it in (which is Mike's side in the current battle), but that doesn't mean I like Mike's tactics... ordering somebody else to leave is not something he has any business doing given that he's not a moderator or anything. And both sides have violated the 3RR. *Dan* 00:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind keeping it in if it is sourced. 66.36.141.203 01:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
The information seems kind of extraneous. It's just something added in to make a few fans happy. But most importantly, it's not useful encyclopedic information about the band. <--Chemical Halo 01:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Hardly anything worth keeping on the page of this band. 66.36.141.203 01:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I also agree, it's not significant that a few fans were confused about the release dates now it's know to everyone. The only reason I left it while editing is because I suspected it might be related to some controversy on the discussion page. I respect that it is in the article as some kind of compromise but what need is there to compromise on something that isn’t encyclopaedic anyway?. —FlooK 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the information is worth keeping on this page. It gives a history of the band's successes in the past and present as well as cultural and musical influences.--Nenuial 13:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same info? I'm referring to the line about how fans were confused by which album was going to be released first and when. That doesn't really address anything about the band or their influences. It's just about an issue some fans had, and is long dealt with, since the first album Mezmerize has already been released. This line: "The dates and order of release for these two albums were somewhat controversial among fans in early 2005, as some believed that the release was supposed to be in the opposite order and the first one was supposed to be released in April".<--Chemical Halo 17:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Oh... I've definitely misunderstood something then. I agree with you on that Mezmerize/Hypnotize issue. It isn't relevant at all and should be removed.--Nenuial 14:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

When this page is unlocked, someone change the link [[Armenian]]s to [[Armenian people|Armenian]]. Dmn / Դմն 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Page lock

I don't know why people want to edit war about this group. Are they popular or something?

Anyway, while it's locked, just propose your changes on the talk page and an Admin will apply them until the edit warriors get tired and go away. Uncle Ed 17:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

*chokes on water* Wow! :-) I thought everyone knew about these guys :P Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
So, why is the page protected again? Yeah, of course this band is popular, you never heard these guys? -- Mike Garcia | talk 19:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Uncle. : D Just a minor change, Armenian hasn't been changed to Armenian as requested during the previous protection. -->Chemical Halo 00:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hollywood single

I just checked with Utopia records, John tells me that Hollywood as a single does not exist. There's your confirmation: if Utopia say so, then it must be so :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct. Also, there is no song called "Hollywood" (however there is "Old School Hollywood" and "Lost in Hollywood") MrHate 03:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nu-metal

To avoid breaking the three revert rule sometime in the near future, I will pose this question to our anonymous editor, 64.142.89.105, who seems to be on some sort of crusade to irrevocably brand System of a Down with the nu-metal label: Why do you consider System of a Down nu-metal? Explain your point, please. Check out the alternative metal page and see if you don't agree that System of a Down more accurately falls under that description. --Dalkaen 04:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course they are nu-metal.
I already know your position on the argument; what I want to know is why you believe this. If you have no justification, then I'm afraid there's little reason for you to repeatedly edit this, and every other article referencing System of a Down. It seems like a lot of people came to a consensus about the alternative metal label quite a while ago, and frankly it's impolite for you to make such a change without noting any reason. --Dalkaen 22:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
No. They are not. And your use of the "Check album pages" as an excuse is invalid as well. Because you changed the album pages. The genre of a band is based on their music. And their music does not fall into the Nu metal classification. It falls more properly into alternative metal lynch 23:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
YES, THEY ARE NU METAL, OK! And you know it, don't you?
Ugh, stop it. This is simply childish. --Dalkaen 02:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
You are in the wrong, Mr. Dalkaen! The band is really nu metal, NOT alternative metal.
Would you please explain why? --Dalkaen 02:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
NO! NEVER! Okay, fine! Look, I know this is getting so old now, but seriously the band has been nu-metal for years. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're in the wrong, Mr. Dalkaen!
Just because the media calls them nu-metal, it doesn't mean they are. o_O --Dalkaen 02:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, yes it does! And the band has influenced nu metal for years since they put up their first album.

I don't know "nu-metal" from old metal, so I have no opinion on this edit war, but I think the anonymous editor went way over the line with the last edit comments that threatened "hell to pay" if anybody changed his/her/its edit. *Dan* 03:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


Dudes, this discussion is very pointless, first of all it is not so important (and not si easy to define) what kind of style exactly the band plays, because they are collecting so many syles - from folk music through blues and jazz (even) to hardcore, I think the deffinition "alternative metal" is the best choice, the name itself says everything - it's an alternative to the standard heavy metal, which means it sounds different. Otherways they are (in my opinion) definitely not nu metal - Daron's biggest inspiration is Black Sabbath, the guys don't rap at all, there are no electronic effects in their music, the vocals are quite different in comparison to nu metal and the compositions (still simplier than heavy metal) are more complicated than nu metal. I don't see any similarity to Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit for example (which are nu metal). And, by the way, in most of the music web pages they are defined as "alternative metal", for example look in www.allmusic.com or in some other music catalogue. --Tzeck 13:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but to be fair, Old School Hollywood has some electronic effects. That's their only song that does though, I think. Otherwise, you make valid points. I don't think the anonymous editor really cares much, though. He seems just to be a troll, and there's not much we can do about it, short of protecting the page. --Dalkaen 14:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this is the only song with electronic effects, but Metallica also have electronic vocal effects in "The House Jack Built" for example, but that doesn't make them something different than what they are. It's just a song.
About the anonymous user - protecting is a way, but it's better to find some other solution of the problem if we can and keep the article opened. --Tzeck 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm getting very tempted though to invoke the 3RR rule to this page. Lets settle this in a civilized mater. Ok? To the unknown editor, stop making threats, register to this site, and have a civilized discussion with us. --ZeWrestler Talk 20:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Tzeck that classifying styles exactly isn't worth it. They're inherently subjective so the whole argument is kind of pointless. Still, I'm opposed to labeling System of a Down as nu-metal when they're clearly not. The lack of rap, pop beats, and to some extent teenage angst all indicate that the band is not a good example of nu-metal. It's also irritating that the person who keeps making these edits chooses to make threats and type in all caps. He's free to edit the "are they nu-metal" section, but the article should not make the blanket claim that they are nu-metal. Rhobite 20:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm a huge SOAD fan, but I don't see SOAD being in the same genre (nu-metal) as Korn, Linkin Park, and Limp Bizkit. I think they've formed their own genre. They're nothing like any other genre of rock.

Here's a nice quote. On one of SOAD's spring 2005 tour shows, Daron Malakian quoted this, "They used to call us nü-metal, now they call us prog-rock. I think they'll call us anything that's popular. (Then, after a pause and the subtlest of grins) But actually, we're just a bunch of mo-rons." --Ultrasound 14:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
If you read under the Nu Metal or not? heading I put enough evidence to prove that the band never endorsed the fact they were nu metal. So don't start another edit war or atricle lock etc. No more reverting! --Ultrasound 14:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHA. Listen you guys, while this is halirous, it's a really lame edit war (and I listed it at WP:LAME a while ago with one of the silly comments above). I'm also the anon ip who "NPOV"ed the intro the first time [23].

Anyway, I think that somehow you're going to have to come to an NPOV agreement on this - if they did refer to themselves as "nu metal" then it probably should be mentioned in the intro ("although they have referred to themselves as nu metal on occasion") etc.. The current way looks pretty good though... hopefully it stays up.

Also, as for the category... that's a tough one. You'll probably end up having to put them in both (even though it seems silly) since they are percieved as nu metal by some people still.

Take care :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


This is getting ridiculous. Alternative metal is a NON-EXISTENT genre. It's been made up by people who are too ignorant (or in too much of a state of denial) to realize that "alternative metal" is another name given to bands who are classified as nu-metal by people who can't accept that their favorite bands aren't actually metal. This is probably why people keep changing their status to nu-metal. And why people change it to heavy metal is beyond me. Heavy metal is stuff like '80s Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, and Iron Maiden. System of a Down has NOTHING to do with this musically or ideologically. The only reason I could see that people would put them down as heavy metal is for the sake of the "Nu-metal" vs "alternative metal discussion. This is in itself ridiculous since nu-metal is a sub-genre of alternative rock.

Harvested Sorrow 21:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal is a general term. You can't claim that alternative metal is a non-existent genre when a Google search query yields 735,000 results. --Dalkaen 22:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


No, heavy metal is one sub-genre of a whole particular genre. Even if one IS to use it as a general term it's irrelevant as they're an alternative rock band (nu-metal) and not a band of any sub-genre of metal. And yes, I can make that statement. If you do a google search on "Love Metal" you'll get plenty of results, however, is it a real genre? No. Alternative metal is as much a real genre as SoaD is a classic rock band. Harvested Sorrow 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the only reason they're "nu-metal" is because they don't fit into some other genre. I don't think that's a good reason. If we can't decide on a narrow genre for them, can we just settle on "hard rock" or "metal" and leave the explanatory section in the article? Rhobite 20:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you do a Google search on "love metal," most if not all of the results will be related to an album by HIM. (Also, I just noticed that there's an aritcle on the genre.. Ridiculous.) --Dalkaen 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

System of a Down is a BAND. Plain and simple. I changed it because there is a part of the article that questions if it nu metal or not, therefore the reader can decide. Duh.

Aerials Single Information

Looks like the single info is back - didn't mean to annoy anyone by asking for it back but I'm new and was miffed at the thought my hard work had been erased without good reason.

Anyhow, I have the UK Aerials single info for the person who's adding the links up there if they want it.

colderclimate

The "there's gonna be hell to pay" sentence

I am so getting tired of the various anon users saying the sentence "there's gonna be hell to pay", that doesn't mean anything for English, does it? I'm guessing they must have been watching the episode of Malcolm in the Middle, there's an episode with a sentence like that when Malcolm was trying to fall in love with a girl and the father did say the sentence. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's an old expression, though a rather nonsensical one... just who is expected to "pay" for hell? At any rate, it seems to be a completely empty threat, as the anon user has been saying it for weeks and hasn't done anything beyond continued edit-warring. *Dan* 02:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Empty threat, yes. Annoying even more so. Just look at the conversation above about nu-metal. You can see the annon user's annoyance with changing this. Personally, I believe the band is metal, along the lines of heavy metal. They are not anywhere nears nu-metal at all.--ZeWrestler Talk 17:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Cigaro" and chart update

While Cigaro was not released as a single it did receive airplay and may have charted on the Mainstream Rock chart (if nobody checks I will as soon as I get around to it).

Some Admin please update "Question!" from #14 to #12 on the Mainstream Rock chart. Thanks. Xinger 07:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I don't understand why this page is protected. A single user keeps changing the first line to "nu metal". So what? Just revert it. Keep reverting it. Protecting it stops it, but it also prevents the whole wiki process from working. How long is the protection intended to stay for? kmccoy (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that page protection is somewhat pointless in this case. It prevents people from making useful alterations to the article. There are plenty of users who have this page on their watchlist and can easily revert any troll's vandalism. --Dalkaen 21:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected. Cheers! Sasquatch讲看 04:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Album mixup rumor

For reference, it was decided months ago that the Mezmerize/Hypnotize album mixup rumor thing shouldn't be in the article. Here are the quotes you can find above:

"it's not significant that a few fans were confused about the release dates now it's know to everyone [...] what need is there to compromise on something that isn’t encyclopaedic anyway?." —FlooK 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"That doesn't really address anything about the band or their influences. It's just about an issue some fans had, and is long dealt with, since the first album Mezmerize has already been released.".<--Chemical Halo 17:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
"It isn't relevant at all and should be removed."--Nenuial 14:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my own objection when I was still posting by IP. Pasboudin 01:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was a compromise that was worked out to avoid an edit war. by removing it, you are encouraging an edit war. Sorry, but that is unacceptable. Danny 02:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Reading the above, I don't really see that it was agreed to as compromise. Before things really got hashed out, the article was protected, which chilled things a bit. There was a request for verifiability, and no information was provided, although there have been two months to find something. Per WP:V, the removal looks proper to me. -- Norvy (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Norvy is 100% right here. There doesn't seem to be any compromise at all. Not only that, but Norvy has also noted that repeated requests to make the statement in conformity to Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, etc. have been completely ignored. Pasboudin 04:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is the source how Hypnotize was first and Mezmerize was last: [24]. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is just one third-party news site report. If we must do this, I can settle for a phrase such as "some news outlets reported that Hypnotize would be released first, followed by Mezmerize soon thereafter" if you include the Ultimate Guitar url. I still agree with the others that it shouldn't be here, but in the interest of Wikipedia harmony, I can live with it if you insist. Pasboudin 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. But, I'm sorry to disagree with you and acutally yes that information should be in the article. Especially when you threaten to revert me by saying things like: "I am trying settle this with you" when you were an anon. Pasboudin, what does that even mean? That doesn't mean anything in English. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Here I am thinking we were finally having a civilized conversation. I'm discussing a compromise and you're attacking me for no reason with things like "you should never post here". Pasboudin 00:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm saying that ("you should never post here") because you and your edits have been nothing but spew of vandalism when you were all these IPs:
I can see you're making good edits now, yes, but you've been chasing me away with all your bad ones. But, no I'm not trying to attack you, say that I hate you or you suck. I'm just getting tired of reverting all your bogus edits on related-System of a Down articles and I have no idea why you keep telling me to offer a source, the word "stop" is all you have to do, I'm sorry and the next time I see you vandalize these pages (System of a Down, Mezmerize, Hypnotize, etc.), I will have to report you for your own good. This site is just not a palce for you to play. Do we understand each other now? -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's try and keep this discussion here for now, rather than having the same conversation on three different pages.

Here's the phrase that was removed: There was some confusion in early 2005 over these release dates, with many fans and fan-sites believing that the releases were to be in the opposite order. The album was also believed to be called Mezmerize before rotating.

Here's my proposed rewording: Although some sources originally reported that the first album would be titled Hypnotize, it ended up being titled Mezmerize.

From reading the source, I don't see any proof that the content of the two albums changed, just the titles. Thank you for providing a source, Mike. -- Norvy (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I support Norvy's proposed rewording. Pasboudin 21:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC) It has been 3 weeks and Mike has decided to completely ignore commenting on this compromise wording (which was attempted solely to settle the issue with him). It's clear that the mass consensus at Talk:Hypnotize#Let's vote is that the comment should be removed (which I've been campaigning for from the start). So be it. Pasboudin 00:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there was a mix-up, the band had prepared album artwork, packaging and even the website prehand. This couldn't have been an overnight mistake. This shows signs of planning. Who said Ultimate Guitar was the official source? Get it over with. Mezmerize has been released and Hypnotize is next. The present matters, not the past. No more reverting, vandalism, locking, bitch slapping etc... --Ultrasound 14:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine, here's another source then: [25]. The Ultimate-Guitar link is old anyway and MTV.com, it was posted in November 2004. -- Mike Garcia | talk 19:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Get over it. Mezmerize has already been released, Hypnotize will come later. Fin. --Ultrasound 06:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
My vote is still for getting rid of the comment. I don't think in the future anyone will come to Wiki looking for information about whether some fans were confused about the release dates of the albums.-->Chemical Halo 07:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've created a poll at Talk:Hypnotize#Let's vote for this issue. --Army1987 12:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Armenian issues?

Quote from the opening paragraph "...and some of their songs are about Armenian-related issues (including the Armenian Genocide)." Only one song is. Armenian releated issues? Name one (besides the Armenian Holocaust). Shouldn't be in the opening paragraph --Ultrasound 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I took that sentence out a while ago but someone put it back in. I agree. We only know for sure that "PLUCK" is about an Armenian issue, in addition to "Arto" which was the hidden track on Toxicity. Pasboudin 16:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
There's Holy Mountains too...Worldmaster0 02:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Nu-metal again

To the anon - please stop blindly reverting and discuss WHY you think they should be labeled as nu-metal. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Get ready for another round of "it's nu-metal because I say so, and you'll be sorry if you revert me once more." One of the stupidest edit wars I've seen. Consensus is to include the explanatory section and not make the blanket statement that they are nu-metal. Let's move on. Rhobite 00:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It's obvious to me that the anon doesn't really care if System of a Down is nu-metal or not. He just wants to make trouble, because it amuses him. He's just a troll. Hopefully he'll tire of it eventually, and we can just keep reverting his edits. He vandalized my user page a while back, too. --Dalkaen 09:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Darren Willson

Who the hell? What the?

Before system of a down, serj and daron were in a band called Soil, which then added Shavo and a line of drummers which became system of a down. And system of a down had mostly armenian members. --Ultrasound 11:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


History, style, and influences

"Their main influences are most noticeably from earlier alternative rock bands, but they also draw influence from the punk rock, jazz, fusion, Armenian folk music, classic rock, blues, and industrial genres."

Alternative rock and punk rock influences are indisputable, and Armenian folk is certainly noticeable. What about jazz, fusion, classic rock, blues, and industrial? I don't hear much of that in their music. Could anyone cite some examples as to where this influence shows? --DalkaenT/C 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (PS: This page is getting rather long; it might be time for an archive.)

Not much jazz and blues in there, that's for sure. Pasboudin 23:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
There are jazz touches definitely, mainly in the first album, hear for example "Sugar", there are a lot of typical jazz rythms and jams. Some jazz stuff is also to find on "Toxicity" I think, but not so much. There is not so much jazz at all, but still there is some. Well, about blues is hard to say if there is some or not, there're some melancholical parts that maybe could be defined as blues, but I don't think there's any industrial. --Tzeck 16:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:System_of_a_Down/Archive_1&oldid=1142779225"