This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Armenia B‑class System of a Down is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Metal Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Biography: Musicians B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). California Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. California Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:WBLA

Archives
April 2004 – December 2005 December 2005 – March 2007 April 2007 – ongoing

What's the deal with SOAD? Are they gone forever? I sure hope not.... I think there has been talk about Daron taking over. Is this true? If so, is Scars on Broadway going to be merging into SOAD? I want some answers, please. <fontcolor="red">The Coolest dude on the<fontcolor="blue">PLANET ([[User talk:69.156.127.89|Chat wit meh (The coolest dude on the planet)]]) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serj is credited with "Rhythm Guitar" on the band members section, yet I have yet to see any crediting on any of the actual albums to Serj on rhythm guitar. If he actually did, it needs substantiation or citation. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.58.212 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serj has played rhythm guitar on live performances, such as Big Day Out 2002 on the live performance of "Aerials".

JimmyNikaidoh —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyNikaidoh (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serj Tankian has been doing his rhythm guitar for awhile. I belive he First stared it back in the Axc Of Justic tour thing. But we all know he's got his own solo album out now Elect The Dead I love SOAD and All they do in SOAD or not. they rock- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Down With The System (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soil was a band for like 2 months. not to mention theyre not even active anymore, so theyre not associated Dissectional 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Soil was a band for three years. You'd know that if you actually read the article. And I figured Soil would be an associated act being three of four SOAD members were a part of it. If being active is a problem, Serart probably shouldn't be on there either being Serj hasn't really done anything with it since 2003. FallenWings47 11:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, but soil officially broke up, and serart is a side project, and serj and shavo are probably going back to it once their own records are out. Dissectional 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying. Do you have any references to Serj and Shavo doing that? FallenWings47 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it says that in the serart article. also, soil never released anything. if you still think it should be added, then i have a source of daron talking about his first band, snowblind, when he was 15. that would have every right to be on the article then too, but i feel that the associated acts should either be active, or at least have released something. Dissectional 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Hey, maybe you should add anything you have about that band to Daron's page. Just a thought. Do you have anything on any other bands? Maybe the bands Serj and Daron were in before Soil? FallenWings47 21:11, 4 August 1996 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about his band snowblind in an interview i found on his high schools web site, glendale high. it doesnt really give any info on the band, so i wouldnt really be able to add anything to the page. Dissectional 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well do you know anything about any other pre-Soil bands? FallenWings47 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From rumours I hear that Soil songs were long lasting songs that were up to 10 minutes or so in length... 216.8.144.254 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! I wish I could get my hands on some!.. FallenWings47 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say its wasnt an associated act becuz soil is sytem of a down, they just changed the name.

http://www.hardradio.com/shockwaves/system1.html in this interview daron states.................. I'm sure many of you are probably wondering, what is the meaning, or concept, behind "System Of A Down"? Daron explains, "I thought of the name from a poem that I had written. It was originally called 'Victims Of The Down,' but Shavo didn't really like the word 'victims' in the title, so I thought up 'System Of A Down' and it just clicked...Plus, now our album will be under the 'S' section, next to Slayer!" and you can see that shavo was the one who didnt like the word victims, not serj. also, im not sure if it is a typo or not, but they put victims of THE down, instead of victims of A down. Dissectional 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the "Maximum System of a Down" CD, I'm pretty sure it says it was Serj who came up with Systen. FallenWings47 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum system of a down is an unauthorized biography, and the accuracy of it is unknown. this is an actuall interview with the band. i think its more reliable. Dissectional 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose that's true. I guess I'll take your word for it. FallenWings47 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it's official, the name means nothing and makes absolutely no sense24.4.56.146 (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, SHAVO thought of the name 'system' on a poem Daron made, 'Victims of a Down.' Shavo thought system was a stronger word, and Daron and Serj agreed. 86.112.239.13 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know it has been proposed before, and no one thought anything of it, but reading the article, they have some similarities. They have used middle eastern intruments such as ouds and sitars, and have worked with middle eastern artists such as arto. i think they have more similarities with this genre than they do woth nu metal. Dissectional 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoaD have Armenian folk influences but "oriental" influences are rarely introduced in their music. These influences are mentioned in the Style and influences section.

I think oriental metal is a dubious genre. The oriental metal article does not cite its references and was nominated for deletion once. The bands in the article are far more extreme than SoaD all being death or black metal bands. I don't see similarities with oriental metal. I however see a lot of similarities with nu-metal (explained in the Progressive_Metal section). Eman ^(Talk) 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to the second person who posted. if you read the article, you would see that when they say oriental, they mean middle eastern, which soad has a lot of influence from, and have used middle instruments ans worked with middle eastern artists. i think you are thnking oriental as in asian or chinese, which is not what the genre is. Dissectional 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know exactly what the oriental metal article is about, and SoaD don't fit the genre (listen to the bands listed in the article, and you'll probably notice the difference with SoaD). Eman ^(Talk) 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone who still thinks Nu Metal should be left, I think you should watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7vPcGRTVuA Korn, who basically invented the genre, are talking about how Nu Metal is basically Metal mixed with Hip Hop. System of a Down have NO Hip Hop influence AT All. Also, and I dont mean to offend anyone, but when I think of Nu Metal, and I know a lot of people will both agree and disagree with me on this, I think of the "white trash" or "trailer trash" persona. A prime example is Limp Bizkit's lead singer. Whenever you search Nu Metal on google or youtube, you get something to do with Rap Metal, and for that reason, I dont think Nu Metal should be left in the info box. i also think that Alternative Metal is the genre that best describes their music, and when most people think of Alternative Metal, they think of Nu Metal without the Hip Hop factor. I know some of you are going to say that Nu Metal doesn't have to involve Hip Hop or Rapping, but the fact is that pop culture will always think of Nu Metal as Rap Metal, and I think these articles are made to cater to the average person. Dissectional 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough sources state SoaD is nu metal:

• "System of a Down Biography". Rockdetector. 2007-02-15. Retrieved 2007-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Will Hodgkinson (2003-02-21). "Songs in the key of C". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 2007-05-06. Chisholm moves on to some of the nu metal she listens to at the gym, including System of a Down and Linkin Park. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Maria Armoudian (2003-02-06). "Rock's axis of activism". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-05-06. Serj Tankian, lead singer of the multiplatinum-selling nu metal band System of a Down... {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "American Recordings/Columbia Records Release Special Limited Edition of System of a Down's #1 Album 'Toxicity'". PR Newswire. 2002-04-23. Retrieved 2007-05-06. Toxicity... was named Album Of The Year 2001 by Spin magazine who raved Toxicity is the most ambitious record yet to emerge from the nu metal scene. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Adrien Begrand (2002-07-25). "Various Artists: The Pledge of Allegiance Tour". PopMatters. Retrieved 2007-05-06. ...combining aggro punk with old school metal and the off-kilter sounds of Frank Zappa... I'm not someone who's completely unfamiliar with nu-metal. When it's done well, it's extremely powerful, but few know how to pull it off properly... especially System of a Down's two albums. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

and like ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE said earlier, SoaD has a lot in common with Nu metal:

• Generally speaking, the emphasis in the music is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat. --- Yes, SoaD does not have teen angst, but it definitely does have emphasis on motivating the crowd to move with the beat. I must say, both in the music and lyrics. On "BYOB," the chorus is extremely pop-like (from an alternative rock POV) and says "Everybody's going to the party have a real good time, Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine" which is an incitation to dance and "move with the beat". On "Lost in Hollywood", one part says "All you bitches put your hands in the air" which is another incitation to "moving with the beat" and is sounds like something a rapper would say (that's my opinion).
• Nu metal guitarists generally make liberal use of palm muting. --- SoaD uses a lot of palm muting. First examples that pop up to my mind are "BYOB", "Radio/Video", and "Old School Hollywood".
• Another common technique with nu metal guitarists is the use of de-tuned strings whose lower pitch creates a thicker, more resonant sound. --- A technique that SoaD uses. "BYOB" is in Dropped C (I believe), but anyone with the slightest guitar knowledge would notice that SoaD are tuned down.
• This is typical of nu metal bands in that guitar solos are rare in nu metal songs in general, and when they do appear they are often short. --- SoaD have very few guitar solos, and if they do they are extremely short or do not emphasize on technicality (which, in general, is what most metal bands do in a guitar solo).
• Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock, guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal, hardcore punk, and rapping. --- SoaD uses (most of the time) melodic singing and shouting, and in some occasions uses some rap-like vocals (most notably in their "Chop Suey" intro and verses). Although it is not, properly speaking, rap, the link must be considered. I would still like to remind you that rapping does not necessarily make you a nu metal band, and that being a nu metal band does not necessarily means you rap. There are nu metal bands who don't rap, and they are still nu metal.
• Normally, nu metal songs have a song structure of instrumental introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, sometimes another verse but almost always ending with a chorus. --- This is characteristic of SoaD. Most of their songs (I'm not saying all of them) have a very simple "verse-chorus-verse" structure (as well as the slight variants).
• It is generally louder in the instrumental parts and the choruses than in the verses. --- Listen to "Attack" on their last album.
• Another thing I'd like to mention is that Serj Tankian worked with Limp Bizkit (a well known nu metal band), Saul Williams (a hip-hop artist), M.I.A. (a rapper), and The Notorious B.I.G. (another rapper & hip-hop artist). The link to hip-hop and rapping with System of a Down's lead singer is therefore established. I don't have the material that Tankian produced with those artists, but seeing how those artists are predominantly hip-hop and nu metal (in Link Bizkit's case), it is probable that the material is similar to hip-hop and nu metal in style. the 'introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge' is used by every genre of music: rock, country, punk, so that doesnt make them nu metal either

SoaD is nu metal. Cheers Emmaneul ^(Talk) 08:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the only reason they were labeled as Nu Metal is because all of the hard/metal music that was popping up around that time was following Korn and adding the Hip Hop element. Because they happened to play music that was more hard or agressive than a rock band, they were considered Nu Metal. As for the things that ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE said, I can easily say how they are wrong. When he gives the reference about BYOB, and how that line "everybody's going to the party have a real good time, dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine." That line is metaphorical. BYOB stands for bring your own bombs, going to the party is metaphorical for going to war, blowing up the sunshine in the desert is like dropping bombs in Iraq. So those lines dont have anything to do woth the crowd moving to the beat. The detuned guitar doesnt make nu metal either. metallica did their st anger album in drop c. and almost every hard rock/metal band today uses drop d or lower. the 'introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge' is used by every genre of music: rock, country, punk, so that doesnt make them nu metal. as for the working with the rap artists, MIA just remixed one of his songs, serj was writing poetry with saul williams, and i dont think he even did anything with B.I.G. as you can see, all of the things he said are either irrevelant, or fit with other genres as well.Dissectional 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then, there are still tons of professional reviewers who call it nu metal, I (and all editors should) take their opinions into account, not our opinions. If you can find reliable sources where is mentioned that it's a total mistake to call SoaD a nu-metal band, then maybe we could incorporate that information into the article. For now I trust the professional reviewers.

PS Not all nu-metal is closely related to hip hop (f.e. Slipknot (band), Coal Chamber, Disturbed (band)) Emmaneul ^(Talk) 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A7191975 is one i mentioned in another genre debate on this page. ill look for more later. i think proffesional reviewers label them as nu metal because their music doenst fit in with modern metal bands, such as dragonforce, meshuggah, isis or nile (all of which i am fans of), but it doesnt fit in with modern rock bands either. since their music is tough to classify, they figure they should put them as nu metal. i am a metal fan, and i listen to what most people call true metal. those bands i listed are just a few of my favourites. so im not just some kid who listens to korn and limp bizkit and think "itz the heaviest shit out thur" lol. in my opinion, even though SoaD doesnt fit in with those other bands i listed, i find more similarities with them than i do comparing them to korn, limp bizkit or slipknot. Dissectional 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Cowan writes about Hyponotize which is more prog then every pre-Mezmerize release. The infobox covers that by stating SoaD is not purely nu metal, they are alternative metal, experimental, and nu metal. There are enough reasons to have nu metal in the infobox: The popularity of SoaD during the nu metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style. They are no less nu metal than Slipknot (band), Coal Chamber, Disturbed (band) etc. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is to see if nu metal should be kept in the info box or not. simply respond with Keep if you think it should be kept as a genre or Remove if you think it should be removed. We'll let this go on for a week and tally the results. Dissectional 06:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Reason given for removing: unsuitable poll)[reply]

REMOVE Dissectional 06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Zouavman Le Zouave 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Straw_polls Poling is suitable for finding a consensus in some occasions, and this is one of them.74.124.33.181 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unsuitable because it is a topic that requires discussion, instead of !votes. That is why the comment has been struck out with a reason provided in brackets.

Seraphim ^Whipp 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think there has been enough discussion on this page already. 74.124.33.181 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then a straw poll will achieve nothing. Seraphim ^Whipp 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been from both sides of the debate, and i fell there has been more said to remove nu metal. this poll will reinforce the answer. 74.124.33.181 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very doubtful anyone will participate. I for one, will not. I do not like the genre label of nu-metal, but I will not protest it further because thoughtful, well-structured arguments, backed up by evidence, have been brought forward to support that label.

Seraphim ^Whipp 09:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself along with other users have given our opinons as well, and i think we have proven the people proposing nu metal wrong. Just look at the really long repsonse by User: Revan ltrl. He may be a little rude, but his answers are correct. 74.124.33.181 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to copy what User:Revan ltrl wrote once again? I've read it through twice already, and I've already commented on how uncivil this user is, and how threatening to harm another article sounds like something that would violate WP:POINT. I would consider removing the copy of the message; we don't really need to have two copies of it on the same page (especially considering it's quite a lengthy message). Zouavman Le Zouave 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry 74.124.33.181 but I have seen no proof yet. Maybe I've missed it, I was on holiday. Please, could you show me the proof? We (editors) just cite sources, many sources state SoaD are nu-metal and many nu-metal traits can be attributed to SoaD. That's enough proof for me; nu-metal can be kept in the infobox. We should not add our personal interpretations of SoaD's music to this page (that would be original research), we should look at the opinions of professional reviewers on reliable sites. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proof that SoaD is not nu metal is in what Revan ltrl said. the reasons you are giving to keep nu metal are true for so many different genres. 74.124.33.181 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revan ltrl didn't prove SoaD isn't nu-metal. He did prove (if you can call a bunch of unverifiable statements 'proof') however that traits common in nu-metal can be found outside nu-metal (downtuned guitars etc.), SoaD is more than nu-metal alone (as we all acknowledge (see infobox)) and that his definition of nu-metal is very narrow.

Like I said before, SoaD is nu-metal because: "the popularity of SoaD during the nu-metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style."

All people here opposed to nu-metal in the infobox seem to think we regard SoaD as 100% nu-metal. We don't. Just like Led Zeppelin isn't 100% folk-rock and Frank Zappa isn't 100% classical. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SoaD isnt 100% progressive metal either, why shouldn't that be in the infobox. also, a lot of soad's lyrics are abstract, so should we add art rock. 74.124.33.181 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have to make a choice. Mine is Alternative metal based on their apparent heavy metal/alternative rock aesthetics, experimental rock because of their experimental nature (fusing folk music genres and heavy metal, the progressive aspects) and nu-metal ("the popularity of SoaD during the nu-metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style.") Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we even discuss this when all that needs to be done is for Emmaneul to mention the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal? Like someone said before, wikipedia isn't a democracy. To be honest, all this 'full authority' thing kind of freaks me out, I'm very neat, used to discussions. Anyway, I'm glad my long response was read and supported by my fellow SOAD-fans, and I hold on to my answers, even though I regret my kind of rude and sarcastic tone, but I was caught in the heat of the moment, actually believing debating would help, but no. And I don't really think 'uncivil' was fair. But anyway, keep 'nu-metal' if it is mentioned in all those tons of reviews, since discussing the matter doesn't take it anywhere.Revan ltrl 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 5 refs to nu-metal in the infobox before this whole nu-metal debate escalated (see [1]). Now, two of the source are in the style section. If you want more, try these review sites. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think about restoring the demo tapes to the discography? I think they've been unfairly deleted. There are articles about demos of Metallica or Avenged Sevenfold, so why not SOAD? The demos are notable, they have been officially released (at least Demo Tape 1, 2 and 3). gracz54 ^(talk) 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with mentioning demos in a discography, but any release that isn't widely available for verification needs reliable sources to account for existence and content. - Cyrus XIII 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "widely available"? Those tapes can't be widely available now, they're a) circa ten years old, b) no one heard about SOAD back then. gracz54 ^(talk) 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the tapes (Untitled, 1, 2, 3, and 4) deserve a mention as their own articles they were either officially released or part of a leak which now everyone has... If no one wants it as 5 pages we could merge it all into one and mabye that would clean up the discography page a bit more.216.8.154.10 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned in System of a Down discography. I don't see why they should be mentioned here. Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's cause IMO the discography section looks ugly. The demo's deserve their own page(s). 216.8.134.178 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The heated discussions seem to be over. Can I now assume we (again) reached consensus on the following main genres?

Alternative metal
Experimental rock
Nu metal
Various influences

SoaD is too diverse to have all genres in the infobox. The genres not present in the infobox are explained in the Various influences section. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. I have nothing to add to that. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the best option as far as this subject goes. While I myself do not agree with SOAD being labeled as nu metal, a plethora of sources have been provided stating as such. And as we all know, the threshold of inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not necessarily the truth, so I'm fine with this list. Can we finally stop arguing about this seemingly trivial issue? Parsecboy 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since nu metal is debated, we should have that in fine print beside the genre.74.124.33.181 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the size of the infobox (which is relatively small), we'll have to leave the genre debate for the "styles and influences" section. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, i guess that would make it look a little better. Also, should we change the name of the Various influences link? I don't think the word "influences" should be used. 74.124.33.181 22:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as is, but what would you prefer instead? Perhaps there is a better option. Parsecboy 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's fine as it is, but I'm open to discussion. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really think of another word to be used. Hopefully someone will come up with something. I was also wondering what happened to the Genre Dispute section. I think it should be added to the article 'cause the style and ifluence section only talks about their experimentation and influences, and not the disputes with genres. ex: nu metal 74.124.33.181 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well post the ideas as you get them, we're not in a hurry. The contents of the Genre Dispute section (which mainly describes the style of the band) are included in the "Style and Influences" section. I think the section is extremely neutral and I don't think the "genre dispute" really needs more than a sentence in the article, which should be in the styles and influences section. I think the current version of the article is good in that it is sourced (for pretty much every sentence), neutral, and contains citations by the band on their genre and clearly states that the band is difficult to categorize. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the name for the link to the influences section was Various others, like Queens's infobox, but I think Various is fine too. Other suggestions: Various genres, Other genres…

Regarding the genre dispute section: I'm never in favor of a dispute section because it's always a section meant to point out band X is not genre Y (often original research). I don't feel such sections are encyclopedic. Better is a more positive style/influence approach where we can do the opposite; explain why SoaD is genre X, Y, Z and why they're different from those genres, backed up by sources. We have at least 1 source (BBC I believe) to back up SoaD are too prog to be nu. The style/influence could be expanded to meet those needs. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change 'experimental rock' to 'experimental metal', but direct the link towards experimental rock? 74.124.33.181 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh... Why would we do that? By 'experimental rock', we mean 'experimental rock', not avant-garde metal. Zouavman Le Zouave 06:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if Experimental metal = Avant-garde metal, then Experimental rock should = Avant-garde rock (I know that's is not a genre). Could you explain why in metal's case, Experimental = Avant-garde, but in rock's case, Experimental = just Experimental. 74.124.33.181 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look at it this way: The name of the Experimental rock article is Experimental rock, and that of Avant-garde metal is Avant-garde metal. "Avant-garde rock" is not as widely used as "Experimental rock", and "Avant-garde metal" is used slightly more often than "Experimental metal". But anyways, that has more to do with the genres and their names than the System of a Down article. If you have an issue with it, you can always request a move. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we should change it to Experimental metal because System of a Down has a heavier sound than most rock bands. But I'm fine with leaving it as well. 74.124.33.181 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think that avant-garde metal (or Experimental metal, whatever you want to call it) doesn't suit System of a Down. I will make you listen to some experimental rock (which can be very heavy), and then I will make you listen to some avant-garde metal, if you really need to. Both genres have an extremely different sound. System of a Down does not fit into avant-garde metal. Zouavman Le Zouave 09:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the wikipedia pages for both experimental rock and avant-garde metal, and i listened to about 5 bands from each page. i think that this is hard to judge, because each band has different levels of experimentation, and each band experiments with different elements. the experimentl rock bands i listened to weren't heavy at all, and a lot of them have punk influences, which are not present is SoaD's music. in the avant-garde metal bands i listened to, the heavier sound was consistent with SoaD, but artists such as Mr. Bungle changed between genres in one song. so i'm not sure where to put them. i agree that they are experimental. but they are heavier than most experimental rock, but not as "experimental" as the avant-garde metal i listened to. what do you think?74.124.33.181 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that putting experimetal rock is good. The "heaviness" of the band doesn't really matter in that case. Do you really want to push this futher? Zouavman Le Zouave 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me the difference between experimental rock and experimental metal, other than one is rock and one is metal.74.124.33.181 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, like you said: "one is rock, and the other is metal". As a rock band, System of a Down has some experimental properties that make it part of the experimental rock genre (among others). However, if System of a Down was to be treated as a heavy metal band, it wouldn't be avant-garde metal. It would be original, maybe, but not experimental. Zouavman Le Zouave 18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What i don't undertsand is that if you are a rock band with experimental elements, you are experimental rock, but if you are a metal band with experimental elements, you aren't experimental metal. the only difference between experimental rock and experimental metal should be that one is rock and one is metal, but the way you are explaining makes it sound like experimental metal is more experimental than experimental rock. 74.124.33.181 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple to understand. Compared to many rock bands, System of a Down is quite different; different enough to be classified by some sources as experimental rock. Compared to many metal bands, System of a Down aren't that different, especially when we think of the nu metal bands. Do you really want to push this further? I'm kind of tired of it, I must admit, and I think that the infobox right now is extremely neutral and representative of the band's unique style. Putting avant-garde metal was discussed and I think it is a ridiculous idea to classify SoaD as avant-garde metal. Compare bands like Fantômas and System of a Down. You'll see what I mean. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental metal is a genre where the bands can't be compared, due to the wide forms of experimentation. I don't think it's fair to say, compare them to Fantômas and automatically say they aren't that genre just because those bands don't sound alike. I could say the same thing for nu metal. Compare system of a down to limp bizkit. i guess they're not nu metal either then because they dont really sound the same. 74.124.33.181 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is very true. I was however comparing/contrasting them to Fantômas not in a context of similar sounds, but similar degrees of experimentation from the heavy metal genre. Fantômas stretches out metal much more than System of a Down do, that's my point. Zouavman Le Zouave 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss this matter as long as we want, but any change we make should be backed up by sources. I have found few sources for both experimetal rock and avant-garde metal (a total of 3, didn't look for experimental metal). If experimental rock is a problem then we might need another, better fitting genre to reflect SoaD's experimental nature, or completely remove it from the infobox and add the terms to the style section.

But like Zouave says, I don't think avant-garde metal will fit SoaD. AG metal is rooted in extreme metal (death/black), SoaD isn't. But experimental metal is not that bad, if you consider AG metal not to be a synonym (I don't know but to me, considering avant-garde metal to be the same as experimental metal feels like original research, the whole AG metal article is OR). Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally think of avant-garde metal and experimental metal as the same thing. In both cases, I think it is wrong to use it to label SoaD's genre. If we were to change experimental rock to something else in the infobox, I would strongly recommend alternative rock. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think experimental metal and avant-garde metal are the same thing. I think experimental metal is the same as experimental metal, only with more metal influences. Experimental rock basically refers to bands that are very experimental compared to their peers, which System of a Down falls under. Avant-garde metal is similar to Progressive rock/metal in that it is more narrow. You could consider avant-garde metal a sub-genre under/form of experimental rock, just like metal is to rock music. From what I've heard, avant-garde metal is much more experimental and unorthodox, and draws influence from heavier forms of metal, and has has some traits in common with noise music. I think the way we have the genres now is best (though I may be biased as I helped come to this conclusion). If we were to remove experimental rock, I would propose we should put progressive metal in its place. I don't see it as being as correct as experimental rock, but it shows up more in reviews and the like by professionals, and out of all the forms of experimental rock (art rock, avant-garde metal, progressive rock, progressive metal, post-rock/metal), I think it is the most fitting, and appears more commonly in their music than any of those. This is all just opinion of course. Also, about the "varying influences" debate, I might be a little biased as I am the one who first put up that title for it, but I think it should stay. The reason I had switched the title in the info box to that (it was originally just "various") is because I thought it represented their music more. I am also the one who added most of that stuff about their genre influences into the styles and influences section. As I had said their, in my mind, System of a Down has a single genre throughout their career, but that that base sound is a mix of a multitude of different INFLUENCES. That is why I put varying influences and that is why I think it should remain. Of course, this is all opinion, and I don't mind compromising, or switching my views altogether. Mr. Nebbles 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure SoaD did not do this, but Flash Flash Revolution R1 credited this to SoaD. So what I want to know, is who actually did this song, if SoaD didn't? 74.69.245.119 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If no one understands what I'm talking about, it starts off with "So Link has come to town / come to save, the princess Zelda ... " to a remixed zelda theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.245.119 (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, SOAD did not record that song. I can't remember who did, at the moment, but I know it's been discussed here before, somewhere in the archives. Here it is Talk:System_of_a_Down/archive2#Zelda Parsecboy 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band who did the song is The Rabbit Joint. (Sources: 1, 2, 3) Zouavman Le Zouave 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rabbit Joint is another band that is often credited with this song, but i beleive its by Joe Pleiman, who was the lead singer of the rabbit joint. It often gets mixed up because the album was called the rabbit joint, which was most likely named after his band. 74.124.33.181 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources? Zouavman Le Zouave 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://lyricwiki.org/Joe_Pleiman:Legend_of_Zelda i might be able to find more. 74.124.33.181 11:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good source[2]. gracz54 ^(talk) 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hearing a song on the radio by System of a Down that ive never heard before. I can never catch the name. Is this a copycat band or them?

Ive listened to every song SoaD has too. Even ones that arnt on albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the song called 'The Unthinking Majority' or 'Empty Walls'? Serj Tankian, SoaD's lead singer, has a solo album coming out and those two songs have been released to the radio. You probably heard his voice and thought it was SoaD. 74.124.33.181 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The radio and Digital Download singles, to be exact. gracz54 ^(talk) 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old promo sticker of theirs from 1996 and the band was called "System of the Down". Relevant enough to include? 76.245.62.113 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you scan it and upload the pic, i would be interested to see it. It might have been a 3rd party sticker, and they got the name wrong. So its probably not official. 74.124.33.181 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted nu metal on their genre. People you have to know the difference between Nu metal and Alternative, or hard rock. I don't consider soad as Nu Metal, sense they don't consider themselves, and i don't consider them. Secondly, they never rap on their FU**ING songs! Then I don't consider Disturbed, and Godsmack as Nu Metal either. There more like Hard Rock bands. Nu Metal is a mainstream shi*t now. So there's lots of people calling several bands Nu Metal, like soad. Nu Metal is Slipknot, Korn, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, and I'm sure theres more bands like them out there. All those Nu Metal bands have at least a DJ, and they use sound effects, and they rap. So does System of a Down, Distubed, and Godsmack have any of that staff in their music??? NO!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.76.55 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider genre X doesn't matter. We only need information that is verifiable and neutral. Do Slipknot and Korn rap on their songs? Please read what's on this page and in the archives to know why nu metal should be included. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC) First of all they do, and Slipknot has turntables. They are nu-metal for a reason, SOAD has no nu metal sound or influince. Q.E.D.[reply]

Although a lot of people disagree with nu metal, we have come to an agreement that it should be listed. As for what Emmaneul said, both Korn and Slipknot do rap in a lot of their songs, and there are sources calling them both rap-metal and rapcore. But this is irrelevant. Even though SoaD do not rap, they have a lot of nu metal traits. A lot of people see nu metal as a derogatory term, which is probably because of a few bands such as Limp Bizkit, but I'm sure we all know SoaD is a more talented band than them. So don't look at nu metal as a bad thing, its just a genre. Why should it matter anyways, as long as you like the music. P.S, nu metal helped older metal bands get new, younger fans. 74.124.33.181 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF! SOAD kinda raps a bit i guess. I could see why that was put down as a genera for songs like deer dance, needles, psyco, etc. were Srj kinda starts to preach and just talk about shit.

Somebody changed the Nu-Metal tag again today. Whilst I have reverted back I need to make sure this is the right thing to do? Does everybody agree? Stefanjcarney 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, yes. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nu metal is debated, i think (Debated) should be written besdie it.Boozer123 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other genres are debated as well, just not by the same communities. A lot of metalheads, those who listen to the more extreme genres of metal (death, black, etc.) would not consider System of a Down a metal band. People who listen to a lot of experimental music including experimental rock artists like Fantômas or Mr. Bungle would argue that System of a Down shouldn't be listed as experimental rock because they judge that they do not experiment enough with sound and songwriting techniques. Nu metal is just as debated as the other genres are, and let's leave that for the "Styles and influences" section, for the infobox is very well balanced as of now. Now if you want to discuss the "Styles and influences" section, that's another story. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here looking for the current band member's names, but some idiot has gotten rid of them. If someone who knows all their names would put them back I'd really appreciate it. Bhree 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serj Tankian is the lead vocalist and he occasionally plays the guitar and piano. Daron Malakian is the lead guitarist and he is sometimes a vocalist. John Dalmayan is the drummer. Shavo Odadjian is the bassist.

It should read C#. While they are the same, C# is the more common usage in wetern music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otcconan (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know c# and Db are the same, but every source i see says Db, so we might as well leave it at that. 99.234.164.101 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a lowered D and not a raised C, "Db" is actually the correct terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.7.219 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That thing about them reuniting in 2008 for a few songs is an unsourced website and will be deleted. As far as I'm concerned until the band or a reliable source of info confirms it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.154.163 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Eventually.... and why isn't it sourced? Also i don't Serj Tankian left hes just on hitas as is the rest of the band so why is her under left? Link287 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I flip through these sections often and notice that many if not all of the side projects of the band have the related articles or something like that relating to Soil. Like I mean no one has or ever will hear Soil as it was a short lived band that for all we know could be a fricken b-boy group. The only things we know about it is that it featured the apex theory bassist, local hawaii drummer, shavo, daron, and serj and that's it. Given this we can assume that Soil has nothing to do with any side projects other than SOAD itself. So from now on don't link or add it to any of the side projects pages. But hey this is my opinion feel free to say what you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.134.178 (talk • contribs)

I think it should be changed to 1995-2006, seeing as they aren't active as of right now. Just because they didn't officially break up, doesn't mean they are still active. They arent working together, and have no plans for tours in the next 4 or 5 years. Lets change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.164.101 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It states that the band is on hiatus, I think that's sufficient to describe the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is, you don't know what nu-metal is. 70.122.23.62 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:System_of_a_Down#Nu_Metal....., Talk:System_of_a_Down/Archive_3#Nu_metal, and all the other sections where this has been discussed to death. Give it a rest. Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through a lot (and I really mean a LOT) of discussion on the genres of the infobox. The most neutral and consensus-approved solution was the one that is still in place. This solution has remained for practically six months, which I think is a record. Developped encyclopedic coverage of the genre can be made in the appropriate section of the article. As for the infobox, I would say that it should only be modified after a great amount of discussion yields a clear and enlightened consensus. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Zouavman, the genres should only be changed after significant discussion leading to a clear consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it should say 1995-2006 without the hiatus. because daron said that they werent talking about a reunion and he said if we are holding our breath for a record, we would turn blue and pass out. Nardulli22 (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people can say a lot of things; until the band officially states otherwise, they're on a hiatus. If and when they do officially break up, the article will be altered accordingly. Until then, the best option is to stick with what the sources commonly state. Parsecboy (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the interview, and Malakian did not say SoaD was over. He said that there was no intention to reunite the band currently, but did not deny the possibility that the band will reunite someday. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i wouldn't assume anything based on one magazine interview. i've heard an interview where maynard says that there will be another APC album in the future and then in another interview done a week or two after that he says that there won't. people can say odd things on a particular day, or even change their mind after a couple of years. remember a couple years ago when billy corgan "broke up" the smashing pumpkins and made this big speech about him never performing those songs again and closing a chapter in his life? and here we are 7 years later with a new SP album & EP and another in the works all because billy had no luck with his 2nd band or solo venture. so when daron says in an interview "there won't be another soad album for a looong time", don't take it too seriously. wait for him to get bored with his side-project and spend all of his soad money, and i can guarantee that he'll be singing a different tune. i bet you we'll see at least 1 new album from the group before 2015.65.43.216.22 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daron is high almost all the time, so you can't really take what he says too seriously. OrangeRorange (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, what a constructive comment was that! Zouavman Le Zouave 13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's true.OrangeRorange (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's verifiable. Please stick to constructive discussion about the original topic. -- Reaper X 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the only activity this page has seen over the past week or more is continual alterations of the genre, either in the infobox, or the lead. It's been primarily anon editors making these disruptive changes, and if it continues, I might just semi-protect the page to put a stop to it.

For all of you who disagree with the genres in either location, please remember that there is a talk page for a reason. This issue has proven to be highly contentious in the past. Take a look throug the old dicussions here and in the archives before making any change; your arguments will likely have been addressed at some point. Even if they have not been addressed (which is unlikely), you must still begin a discussion on the talk page first, before any changes can be made. Thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Parsecboy. This current situation with the genres in the infobox and the lead has been working for practically half a year, which is a record. All changes must require an enlightened and clear consensus. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against undiscussed changes about the genre that's why we need a new discussion about that. Why don't we put the big four classifications written in the part "style and influences" in the infobox (Alternative/Nu/Progressive Metal and Hard Rock)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before making any changes, an enlightened, long-term consensus has to be found. I believe that the genres should not be changed for they are in good balance and reflect a neutral point of view. I would think that progressive metal and hard rock are unnecessary in the infobox since they cannot be applied on most of their songs. Progressive metal, which is dominated by time signature changes, would be difficult to apply to SoaD, which has a rather uniform 4/4 or 6/4 time signature in most of their songs. Hard rock is very closely related to blues, with bands such as Led Zeppelin and AC/DC. I would think that grouping SoaD with this movement would be an error. Mentionning those genres as what SoaD has been described as in the section is enough, in my opinion. I would also like to point out that this article used to undergo extremely frequent genre changes and revert wars until the current consensus was found. This current situation has lasted for more than 6 months, and I think we should keep the article this way, rather than try out different combinations just because we feel like it. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think it's best to leave the infobox as it is. It's probably the best combination, as far as accuracy as well as sourcing are concerned. I know the nu metal issue irks some people (I myself don't consider them nu metal), but they have been repeatedly included in that genre by quite a few reliable sources, so, to be frank, get over it. Again, there's no need to rock the boat for what would be at best no real gain for the article, and in all likelyhood would just cause edit wars and lengthy diatribes here on the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes but Disturbed is also described as hard rock and they played nu metal and not blues-rock before.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against a Parsecboy/Zouavman Le Zouave-Dictatoship about the infobox (genre). I changed the infobox because we have to give the visitors a short and easy to understand view about soad's style. I'm totally against the term "experimental rock" and there is no link to soad (see experimental rock). I'm also against the term "nu metal" but I'll accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Parsecboy/Zouavman Dictatorship" going on here, we are just upholding the consensus that was reached several months ago, and has remained stable in the time since then. Again, if you think something should be changed, you must do so on the talk page first. That's just how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:CON for further information. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said the reasons some weeks ago. ALL of these "new" genres in the infobox (Alt.M./Hard R./Nu M./Progr.M.) have ONE or MORE links. The term "experimental rock" has NO link (in internet AND Wikipedia). I think it is necessary to write genres in the infobox who have links and who are accepted by music pages (like rollingstone or allmusicguide). I did not want to hurt someone, I only want to improve the page to give a good overview about Soad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question of genres is elaborated in the section, no need to spoil the infobox with references, there is a section for that. As for claiming Parsecboy and I are collaborating in some kind of "Dictatorship", I would invite you to read WP:AGF, WP:TINC, and WP:NPA before making any other comments. The previous consensus has lasted for over 6 months on a page where the page suffered daily edit wars. This has been done through months of discussion which yielded a clear, enlightened consensus, that made the article concise, unbiased, and balanced. Now before you change the article around according to your views, which I respect, we should discuss the issue and get a consensus. I will revert your edits to the article and I invite other users to do so as well if you continue to modify this aspect of the article without a long-term consensus. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then give links to "your" genres, please. If you want you can change the infobox, I changed it before I read your new edit. I understand your position about the genres in the infobox (really) and I don't want to create my "own" dictatorship about it. But my position about that is the same as before. I think that we should write the 4 "major genres" in the infobox to give a good and easy (and right) info about soad's music. I gave you the the reasons of my opinion and I know that every one has an own opinion about that. That's why I think the four "major genres" are a good compromise for all because it's a kind of wide "umbrella term" to describe their genre/music.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Experimental rock? I know that their music is experimental but they are NOT EXPERIMENTAL ROCK. That's a false term to describe soad's music. In the article, "experimental rock" is linked to http://www.drownedinsound.com/release/view/4822. Those who read this link will understand my critic: There is a comparison to experimental rock bands (like Jane's Addiction) BUT the text says THAT SOAD IS HEAVIER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE than experimental rock bands("System of a Down, while considerably heavier and more aggressive ..."; line 8).

That's why this link is dead and there are no more links which support the term "experimental rock". Because of this reasons Soad should be described as Avant-garde metal (disputed, but there doesn't have to be a relation to death/black metal, look at the article) or (better and with ONE OR MORE LINKS) as Progressive metal. Soad isn't a full Progressive metal band, I KNOW, but they are not a full Nu Metal band, too. Mrdjulazat 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park are rock. They're basic and mild, But System are heavy and fast,

They are metal in general.

Coagula (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to respect the neutral point of view, rock is used in the introduction for it does not exclude metal out of the picture. The style and influences section describes the genre issue, feel free to read. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this subject was discussed a million times, but the fact is that an agreement (or "consensus" as you like to call it) was never reached. First of all, after reading the reasons you gave on the talk page for why System IS nu-metal, I have to say that most of them are illegible reasons. The fact that System follows a "Verse Chorus Verse" pattern doesn't make them Nu-Metal, or otherwise you'll have to call The Beatles nu-metal too. Secondly, you keep saying that critics have called SOAD "Nu-Metal", but that doesn't stand for anything. You can't really give a band who's genre changes in every song a label. You can call them Experimental, or Alternative - if a band doesn't fit in any known genre, Alternative will be a correct label for it. Lastly, quoting articles that call SOAD "Nu-Metal" does not prove them to be so, and is not a reliable source: Those articles didn't call SOAD "Nu-Metal" based on their musical knowledge, it was based on other articles or websites (i.e Wikipedia) that have stated the same mistake. An article might as well call SOAD a Jazz ensemble. If they'll do, will you put "Jazz" in the infobox? I don't think so.

Who cares? Just leave it; if people want to call them nu-metal, they can call them nu-metal. They'll just have to live with being wrong.

They have been labeled nu-metal by the press many many times. On wikipedia we only cite, we don't state our opinions. Some reasons posted earlier: "The popularity of SoaD during the nu metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style. They are no less nu metal than Slipknot (band), Coal Chamber, Disturbed (band) etc". Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Half of the reasons you quoted here are not only wrong, but most of them are not even true. "The popularity of SoaD during the nu-metal area" - are you kidding me? Metallica is still popular in many places today. Does that make them a Hip-Hop band? "the low tuned guitars" - Huh? The fact that some nu-metal band tune their guitars like that doesn't make any band who uses Drop C a nu-metal band. Static X uses the same tuning and they're definitely not nu-metal. "their catchy yet metal style" - I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous reason ever, and it's not a legible one.

You might not agree, but there are sources to back it up. All the arguments refer to common nu-metal traits and can be applied to SoaD. What you do is turning around arguments. By turning around arguments you are not proving anything. I'll use an example to show you why your argumentation is flawd:

Argument: An eagle is a bird because it has 2 wings, 2 feet and a beak.

Counter argument: 2 wings? mosquito's have 2 wings, mosquito's are not birds. It can't be a bird. Humans have 2 feet, and humans aren't eagles. A beak? that is the most ridiculous reason ever, and it's not a legible one.

And by the way, Static X has been labeled nu metal by the press many times. I think you might want to reconsider your view on nu-metal. Do some research, listen to Slipknot, Disturbed, Papa Roach, P.O.D., Godsmack, Coal Chamber and SoaD's early releases and you'll see nu metal doesn't have to sound like Korn or Limp Bizkit (do it for the sake of research, not for sake of good taste :)). Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Soad has been labeled progressive metal and hard rock by the press, too. Why aren't these two genre in the infobox? Mrdjulazat (Talk) 22.Apr.2008

Because users decided through a long lasting consensus that those genres were to be developped in the section, not the infobox. One of the reasons users have chosen those three genres in the infobox is that they reflected a neutral balance and did not spoil the infobox with superfluous genres, since it was limited to three. As I keep on saying, this solution has lasted for half a year on a page where the infobox and introduction changed radically every day. I think disturbing the already well-established consensus would be a mistake, since we would be opening Pandora's box once again, and yielding to an eventual return to the unstable state it was before the consensus was found. This is why I think that we should keep the things the way they are, but I am willing to discuss that with other users if need be. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position but I think the term "Nu Metal" is wrong to describe Soad's music. We all know that Soad is a succesful metal/rock band but that doesn't make them a "Nu Metal"-band like Korn.

Their experimental style - to combine heavy metal, thrash metal, punk rock and other genres - is known. But to describe them as "Experimental rock" is too low because their music is more aggressive. :I know that "Rock" should be neutral but we should describe Soad's as dircectly as we can: their music is more Metal than Rock. (NPOV)

That's why I think we (also) should categorize them as "Progressive Metal" (although disputed; but the term "Nu Metal", too) because that include their experimental style and their their heavy style.

We don't need daily changes about the genre, we need a compromise: Why don't we put one more genre in the Infobox? There are too many different opinions about the genre(s) (mostly the "Nu Metal" term) and I think one more genre would make the situation much better. But that's only an idea. mrdjulazat (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nu metal genre has been applied an enormous number of times to System of a Down, by journalists, musicologists, etc. The incredible number of sources labeling them as nu metal makes it legitimate to put that genre in the infobox. One good example of how System of a Down has been labeled nu metal is by musicologist Garry Sharpe-Young, who is a specialist of rock and metal music, having released numerous books about diverse subgenres and scenes (see here). You say "their music is more Metal than Rock." I beg to differ. The underground metal communities do not consider System of a Down metal at all. One example of this is how System of a Down is not listed in Encyclopaedia Metallum. You are free to say that you consider the band's sound more metal than rock, I grant you that, but that point of view may not under any circumstance go into the article, for it represents a non-neutral point of view. As for "progressive metal", I don't see any reliable source that labels them as such. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if Nu Metal means modern/experimental metal than you'll totally right. But I think the most people will think about bands like Korn or Limp Bizkit if they read the word "Nu Metal". I've nothing against the word, I'm only against a false interpretation about Soad's style to be like Korn or Linkin Park (I'm not against those bands!).

I know that the most underground metal communities do not consider Soad as metal but the press and many music pages do so. My quote "their music is more Metal than Rock" meant that their music is "closer" to heavy metal than the music of other Nu metal bands.

For what it matters, I'd definitely go for a vote for not being Nu-metal. I have no problem with Nu-metal, but SOAD doesn't fit the description of Nu-Metal (be sure to look at wikipedia's standing). Their lyrics, music style, and rhythm doesn't fit. Xe7al (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are some "reliable sources" that label Soad as Progressive metal like RollingStone or MTV:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1502898/20050525/system_of_a_down.jhtml
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/8957307/system_of_a_down

So I think we should add the Progressive metal term and keep the Nu metal term. mrdjulazat(Talk)

Nu metal doesn't have to be interpreted as anything, it's a musical genre including System of a Down and various other bands. The article concerning the genre describes it pretty well. I still believe that the progressive metal part should be included in the section and not the infobox. System of a Down does not sound at all like progressive metal bands such as Dream Theater or Symphony X, and does not share many musical characteristics with the movement nor has interacted much with members of the progressive metal scene (to my knowledge). A couple months ago, System of a Down's sound was found to have a great number of similarities with most nu metal bands, which is one of the reasons why nu metal is in the infobox. I hardly see any similarities with the progressive metal sound, apart from the occasional tempo changes. Zouavman Le Zouave 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"System of a Down does not sound at all like progressive metal bands such as Dream Theater or Symphony X". Sure. Soad sounds like Soad, their sound is special. Progressive metal is a wide category. I think there are two good links and those links are good reasons to include the term Progressive metal in the infobox but if you are completely against it than I will not add it. mrdjulazat(Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say I am against the addition of progressive metal in the infobox, since I think it is a minor facet of their sound that is better explored and explained in the section. And I agree with you, their sound is special, which makes it tricky to find the right equilibrium to describe their style. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System actually has been involved with a few progressive metal/rock bands. Serj sang the song "Sober" on stage last year with Tool (band), and John has drummed with Tool (band) on two occasions; once last year, and once in 2002. Tool (band) is clearly progressive metal. Also, SoaD's 2005 tour was with The Mars Volta, a progressive/art/rock/metal band, and Bad Acid Trip, an experimental metal/grindcore group. So SoaD have had plenty of interactions with members of the progressive metal scene. 99.234.164.101 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That does not have any implications on their sound and style. A polka band could tour with a rap band, it would not make them rap and polka, respectively. They definitely have been labeled progressive metal, but as I have said in the above paragraph, I believe it should be developped in the section, not in the infobox. Zouavman Le Zouave 15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zouave, the infobox should only have the few most prominent genres into which SoaD has been included; the rest should go in the section devoted to style in the text. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree, I'll accept it. mrdjulazat

Thank you for your cooperation, I appreciate it. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently heard this Technical/Progressive Thrash metal band called Depressive Age who's vocal and musical style greatly reminds me of SOAD, especially the bizarre vocal styling, albeit the music they mame is a lot more complicated, but it still reminds me greatly of it, have the band ever mentioned them as an influence? Their releases greatly predate them, and this reminds me a lot of that thing I heard that sounded like a ripped off Melody from an Emperor song used in one of there's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free2game365 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a source that explicitly claims that Depressive Age has had an influence on the band, sure, go ahead and add it with a ref. ;-) Zouavman Le Zouave 10:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can you write Experimental rock in the infobox? Soad is a metal and hard rock group. We should delete experimental rock and add Hard rock in the infobox cause their music is described as it (many sources!). You can also call them Punk metal or Avantgarde metal but not experimental rock! That's totally wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.11.119 (talk • contribs)

They are experimental rock because they experiment with their sound, and use many unconventional lyrics. Why do you find it so hard to accept that. It seems you are more into the band for the image than the music.99.234.164.101 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the article says System is a rock band. While there may be disputed about what type of metal SoaD is, they are clearly in the metal genre. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.36.149 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This might be your point of view, but it is not shared by several significant groups, such as the underground metal community, who regard System of a Down more like an alternative rock act rather than a metal act. This can be seen in System of a Down's absence from Encyclopaedia Metallum, for example. In order to be neutral on the issue, the introduction says "rock band", rather than "metal band" for the following reason: metal excludes many of the other subgenres of rock, including alternative rock, while rock includes both metal and other rock subgenres, and System of a Down is clearly a rock band, which does not exclude metal from the picture. Putting metal would be non neutral for it only presents one opinion. Zouavman Le Zouave 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added industrial to the styles and influences list, pretty much just because of old school hollywood, but it got removed. I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it.. but maybe one song isn't enough to justify adding a genre? Again, i figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it but i'll see if others agree so it won't keep getting deleted.. 70.106.116.118 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, just a friendly reminder that new threads should go on the bottom of the talk page. I would have to agree that one song isn't really enough to mention influences on it, which is probably why it was removed. Of course, if you can find a reliable source that includes it, I wouldn't be opposed to it being in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

i would like to suggest an external link to System of a Down's last.fm page (http://www.last.fm/music/System+of+a+Down). Last.fm is a user generated music platform offering free legal contents such as music and videos. They have free streams of System of a Down albums, videos, stats, updated gigs listings about the band, etc.. As a member of last.fm staff i would like to point your attention to what we believe to be relevant and free contents for those wikipedia users interested in the band.

cheers,

Marco - Last.fm Staff - Mystical-bunny (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not the link is suitable under the external links policy, but if you are part of the staff there, then you need to ensure the SOAD bio is properly attributed as a mirror of Wikipedia, as it appears to be a word for word copy of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..is the "Future and Possible Reunion" section written and structured like a horrible tabloid gossip column? Needs chopping up. 92.10.95.128 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are their views named as liberal?! That's pathetic, they're not democrats for christ's sake! We all know they go further left than that! As much as RATMRevan ltrl (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They surely aren't conservative, are they? Their political songs clearly advocate Liberal positions, such as Prison Song, which denounces increasing the prison population, and is instead in favor or rehabilitation (this is a classic Liberal argument). And Liberal =/= Democrat. Also, new threads go on the bottom of the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they aren't. I also know how the Democrats get blamed for being "liberal" by the more "conservative" people and just thought it'd clash with many's deranged views of the word (mainly caused by american media) and spoke out of heart, and I know Liberal =/= Democrat. Thanks for putting it on the bottom of the talk page, and good work in ridding all sense of sentience in your answer.Revan ltrl (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil. Also, I'm not sure why you mean when you say that my reply has been ridden of the "ability to feel or perceive subjectively". The fact remains that SoaD holds many positions that can only be described as liberal, regardless of how the American media treats the word. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it means, that's why I used the word. Very appropriately, it seems like, since you fail in understanding why (?) I mean when I say it. Fair enough about the word 'liberal', but I don't understand how you can call a compliment uncivil? After all, isn't that what 'you' are striving for?Revan ltrl (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't use the word "sentience" correctly, hence my "failure" to understand it. Sentience is the ability of an object to "feel or perceive subjectively". My reply is a bunch of electronic 0s and 1s, so of course it can't be sentient. I, of course, am a sentient human being; perhaps you should re-consult your dictionary. As for my comment on your incivility, this whole thing about the so-called lack of "sentience" in my original reply is uncivil. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you are a sentient human being? Are you maybe a kindergarten teacher? Personally I find you sounding like a program with the ability to take offense. And btw, you wrote didn't in italic! Did it hurt? Now who's uncivil?Revan ltrl (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is over; if I see you make another uncivil comment, to me, or anyone else, I will not hesitate to block you. You have been warned repeatedly, both here and in the past. Cease and desist. Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go aheadRevan ltrl (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, where did this conversation go? One minute we're talking about System being liberal, the next an admin is being "insulted" for their lack of... sentience... apparently... ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Wikipedia is a totalitarian activity, which the "discussion" area constantly shows, with "admins" stressing and "correcting" every letter in what you've written for their own enjoyment, it seems like. Please block me, if you find this uncivil enough, can't seem to stop acting like a spoiled brat. Revan ltrl (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to offend anyone, but you both sound stupid arguing over a word. Can't you get over it? Koonboi (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which I hope the smart-ass also does. SOAD ftw! Revan ltrl (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's all kill each other over political views 216.8.133.237 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one only one definition of Nu Metal and It is Rap/Hip Hop Metal with Turntables. The only not very nu metal like band that can stay Nu Metal is Disturbed which Barely puts rap in their metal actually they is a little bit of hip hop in each album and they still are nu metal even though they don't have a Turntable.

These Bands are Nu Metal: Rage Against The Machine, Korn, Linkin Park, Kittie, Limp Bizkit, Crazy Town, P.O.D., Kid Rock, Papa Roach ,Adema, Slipknot, Insane Clown Posse and many many more. Plus all these bands are Awesome. Stop putting These Bands under Nu Metal: Fear Factory, System of a Down, Godsmack, Static X, SOil, Drowning Pool, Trapt, Breaking Benjamin and many many more. Plus all those bands are awesome too.

Cheers

Greetings. Of course, you have total authority over what is and what is not nu metal. I'm sure all of us should've thought of calling you to confirm that first. First of all, you are wrong (saying that the only definition of nu metal is using rap or hip hop elements with turntables is just plainly inaccurate); and second, you fail to get the point. Nu metal is there because numerous quality sources have described the band's work as such. End of story. Zouavman Le Zouave 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal is espouse to be Rap/Hip Hop Metal, Korn was the first metal band to use those features {other than Anthrax}. Korn than confirmed the name of their genre Nu Metal. Bands like Limp Bizkit went and made the only definition of nu metal which is rap/hip hop metal then the definition of the Genre was confirmed the genre that was espouse to recover metal from the Grunge scene. System of a Down has very little elements from the nu metal godfathers. A band is Nu metal if it take most of the elements from the godfathers of nu metal meaning System of a Down and many more ain't Nu Metal.

Again, you fail to get the point. What you think really doesn't matter at all. The nu metal genre has been used to describe System of a Down's style by several reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV for more info. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not defy all mighty wikipedia, and try to understand that the first time around someone like the loyal user Zouavman Le Zouave tries to explain that. And please, Zouavman Le Zouave, such brutal sarcasm is not seen fit in these halls of the wikipedia cathedral. Anything to further light. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys who cares about the sources they are just genres being disputed under arguement. Only System of a down can tell what genre they are and who cares if Serj Talkian works with Limp Bizkit's Fred Durst. So guys you want to know what genre System of a down considers themselves they consider themselves Alternative Metal and also Daron Malakian hates Nu Metal so guys stop changing the genre when Soad says that there genre is Alternative Metal and if they find out people consider them nu metal they won't be happy so guys the genre of this band comes from what they consider themselves, Period just stop people.

WP:V is non-negotiable; a number of reliable sources label SOAD as nu-metal, so it should be featured in the infobox. End of discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources that state Soad as alternative metal than nu metal and I have to say that many people don't consider Soad as Nu Metal look on amazon reviews of Soad albums because most of them don't call Soad nu metal. So here it is I win the talk period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.114 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be the case that there are a significant number of sources that label the band as alt metal, they are not simply alt metal. Take a look at the sources provided earlier on this page. As I said above, there's no point to continue this debate; WP:V is quite clear in this situation. I've warned you once about continuing to revert the infobox, if you do it again, I will not hesitate to block you again. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we put disputed next to Nu metal as no one knows what genre they are and Nu metal is argued by fans plus all the sources you are talking about are opinions from different websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.114 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if we did it for nu metal, we'd have to put disputed tags next to each genre, because I'm sure there are those who disagree with each of them. Leave it to the text of the article to elaborate upon. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro paragraphs sound like they have been written by a 4 year old. Horrible choice of words, bad grammar. I can't even describe it. It needs changing. 99.234.164.101 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're 5 or older, you can go ahead and do it yourself. Good day. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah. It'll feel good and happy. I can respect this situation [System's hiatus] more than I can respect the situation where two people are like, 'The lead singer fucked my girlfriend!' and that kind of bullshit. Nah, man. The lead singer is a special person to me and I am to him. And that's how we ended off. Same with Shavo, same with John. And it will always be. It was a big part of my life. We were onstage together for a long time, man. We went through shit as a band and friends -- we slept in RV's together!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.117.101 (talk • contribs)

No, Daron was just saying that the band going on hiatus is not for a stupid reason like "The lead singer fucked my girlfriend!". Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are still very good friends outside of the band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casket56 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the templates are protected, for music artists, is it possible to add another category for management companies similiar to the one for Labels? Ivygirl16 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references citing the fan-created forum (SOAD Fans) should be removed. Good sources would be reliable news websites, books covering the band or its genre(s), etc. Fan sites are not considered reliable sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The start of the list mentions that one of their songs takes on the Armenian Genocide, but fails to cite which song. If there is such a song, please put it in. Otherwise, take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastBlues (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To what exactly are you referring? The paragraph in the intro that mentions the Armenian Genocide? I'm not sure why the statement needs to have the song named specifically for it to remain in the article. It's perfectly fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's almost perfect and fine. Revan ltrl (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would make sense to have all the songs mentioned in that paragraph, I'd rather not single out just that one subject. As an example, "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989(Hypnotize)," seems appropriate. Rion2032 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHy don't they have an award section. They've won and been nomianted for grammy awards, in addition to other awards.

BTW I think a fair genre for them would be: Alternative Metal, Metal, Hardo Rock, Experimental, Experimental Metal..!!!!!NOT NU-METAL!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.27.9 (talk • contribs)

They may not be nu metal, but they're certainly pop metal. They're enjoyable to listen to but they are a band that any idiot can listen to.--Boshinoi (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color commentary aside, have you any sources to back up your claim? Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm a big fan of music, I generally don't involve myself in the personal lives of the musicians I listen to. That being said certain things do spark my curiosity. I know that Tankian and Malakian, basically started the band. Looking at the credits, Tankian generally wrote the lyrics and Malakian wrote the music, save a couple songs where each of them is listed as a second respectively. In Toxicity Malakian is listed as secondary song writer in half the songs, with Tankian only contributing music writing to two. In Steal This Album! Malakian is listed as secondary song writer in over half the songs and as lead song writer in three of them. Serj once again is listed as secondary in the music writing of a only a few, and has primary listing on a couple, with Malakian having wrote most of the music as usual. With Mezmerize you suddenly see Malakian as the primary song writer for all the songs save one and Serj as the secondary writer in less than half, and Malakian still listed as the primary music writer as well. Hypnotize takes on a similar listing as Mezmerize with Malakian dominating the listing and Serj only having main credit with one song. Since I don't follow the band's dealings I am wondering if this has been explored and if it could possibly be a reason for System's hiatus? Looking at the fact that Serj went on to release a solo album of which he wrote all the songs and music for, I can't imagine his lack of input in System's later releases were out of a lack of want or inspiration. The article doesn't mention anything about the change in tactics, so I'm just wondering if it is something noteworthy that could be added to the article, regardless if it was the reason for the hiatus or not. Livingston 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Aerials" was nominated in Grammy Awards of 2003 for Best hard rock performance.

I know for a fact that some of the members of system use marijuana and cocaine (seeing as i have partied with them) there are parts of their website that says that they use marijana and there songs hint at them using drugs such as cocaine and herione King gemini 92 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims of personal observation aside, have ye any reliable sources? Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serj claims on his website that he used maruijuana to increase his creativity and song writing skill, there are also several interviews where at least one of them is obviously high (see the uranium interview) and there are pictures of serj using a bongKing gemini 92 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that their drug use would probably be more appropriate on their individual biography articles. Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, makes sense, ill check that out, thanks King gemini 92 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know im opening an old wound but system of a down is definetly not nu-metal. they are more progressive/alternative rock then they are nu-metal. Daron has even said in an interveiw that they do not consider themselves nu-metal. and i know the press has called them nu-metal a lot but the press was also calling every other band during that time nu-metal.Rothlain (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you Rothlain and i hope that the genre is changedAkuvn (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you have to remember is that nu metal is more than just Limp Bizkit and Korn; bands like Staind, Godsmack, and yes, SOAD are all at least part of the nu metal genre. Odajdian said "I don't think we sound like anybody else. I consider us System of a Down"; if we go by what the bandmembers say, we end up with "System of a Down" in the field.

Tell you what, if you can find reliable sources that state explicitely that SOAD has been miscategorized into the nu metal genre and explain the differences, this discussion might go somewhere. But if all we have is more "I don't think they're nu metal" and "Daron doesn't like the label", that's not good enough; we're trying to buil an encyclopedia, afterall. Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOAD is not going to participate on the Eurovision Song Contest, watch this video: http://www.faceculture.tv/index.php?cnti_key=11749658 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.224.123 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, the link to metal is incorrect. It should be to metal music not the type of element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.181.123 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a reference to Serj playing keys for the Lords of Acid before Soil? Or that at this time he was going by "The Infamous Rab"? I'd also like to know if anyone knows anything about any of the members pre-Soil bands? I know Daron's first band at age 15 was one calle Snowblind (see Talk:System of a Down#Soil is not an associated act!!), but that's all. FallenWings47 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we simply put it as "American rock band", since they are based in the USA, sing songs in English, and appeal to an American market. The only Armenian thing about them is their ancestry, and it is already dealt with later in the article. Can we keep the intro simple and simply put "American rock band" ? Zouavman Le Zouave 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Appreciated. :-) Zouavman Le Zouave 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed edits of them being an Armenian rock band as well. Skaterchild3 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick explanation: I'm changing the genre section to properly reflect the sources currently given. If you look at the styles section, you'll see hard rock has 6 sources, nu metal has 3 and so does alternative metal. All others appear to have just one. The source consensus is thus fairly clear. It doesn't really matter what the editor consensus of the past may be: that's what the sources very clearly state, so that's what we report. If you wish to change this, all you have to do is find more reliable sources and add those. Prophaniti (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how people are trying to put musicians and bands in boxes. When we can't label one as rock we have to put 2 or 4 or even more genres to identify just what the heck it is. It's all very confusing, and part demeaning. I bet the bands get a good laugh when we're trying So hard to put them in a specific box with 'the same' artists...

Oh and by the way I'm deleting the link to the guy stating that SoAD is progressive. What he is writing about is PROG, not progressive. Those are two different genres. Prog is mostly about politics, it's a quite old genre from the 60's or so when people began to engage themselves into politics thus creating a genre for that. Alas prog has not much to do with progressive music. Find a better link that states that 1. SoAD is progressive(metal) 2. SoAD uses a lot of odd time signatures (they don't have to it's just part of the progressive 'box') 3. Changes in tempo/time-signatures(during a song..) (also part of progressive music) 4. SoAD has concept albums (i.e. the songs in an album link to each other and not just randomly put together)5. Long songs (most progressive songs are over 3-4 minutes). For me, one of the most prominent features of progressive music is the full use of a keyboard player, not just atmospheric sounds but that the keyboardist can actually play the solo instead of the guitar player. DukeTwicep (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found two sources claiming "art metal". http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/16797401/review/16928118/elect_the_dead http://www.avclub.com/articles/serj-tankian,7464/--J.shellenbarger (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend checking about the second one on the reliable sourced noticeboard. I can't really tell from looking at it whether it's a reliable source. It might be, it might not be, I can't tell. The first is, so I'd suggest adding it into the "styles" section. Prophaniti (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See The A.V. Club. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cheers. Looks like two fine sources for "art metal" then. Prophaniti (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on sources: Google News results for system+of+a+down+experimental include The New York Post, while system+of+a+down+prog includes The Miami Herald. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • As a sidenote, I feel that there's too much discussion of how to categorize the band rather than trying to improve the article's quality. I'd personally generalize things a little more than they currently are rather than trying to list specific genres. For example, a featured music biography, Frank Zappa, lists "Rock, jazz, classical, experimental". Couldn't the genres for System of a Down and its band members be summarized in a similarly simple fashion? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

With regards to sources turned up as the ones above, they look fine, so best include them in the styles section, then all we have to do is keep the "genre" field reflecting that appropriately. I'd like to stress that my current editing to the genre field here isn't actually what I'd put them as: I don't think hard rock is appropriate, but I think experimental/progressive rock is. It's just that's the way the sources are right now. But add in what you've turned up through the google news search, and we'll see how that changes the balance.

I can well see where you're coming from with the "genre" issue. There was a move a little while ago to remove the "genre" field from the template altogether. But I think the reason it didn't go ahead is because people felt that genre was still too important a part of what a band is, even if it does cause trouble. I feel that's much what applies here: putting something more general is good at times, but at the same time we should strive to be specific where possible. Really, it's easiest if people just stick to the sources: if a genre is well-sourced, we include it. If it isn't (but does have at least one reliable source), we can include it in the "styles" section, where we elaborate on it all. Prophaniti (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaranoff24: could you add in the sources you've got for experimental rock, into the styles section? It may well be cited more often than hard rock or nu metal, but we need those visible to all in the article itself if we're going to include it in the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is there some kind of glitch with the page? When I actually look at it, it still says in the genre field "Alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock, nu metal, progressive metal", but it says the last edit was to remove hard rock, and that's what appears when I say edit the page too. Prophaniti (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the consensus has been long lasting and respected every recommendation on the English Wikipedia, particularly WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you have reliable sources qualifying the band as a progressive metal act, put it in the styles and influences section, not in the infobox. The infobox is balanced and concise, and the consensus has lasted for more than a year. Now we can look for a new consensus, but until a strong consensus is found, no edits should be made in the infobox genres. I hope I've made my positions clear. Zouavman Le Zouave 07:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have, but unfortunately it's still not a good enough position to warrant your changes. The fact of the matter is that consensus is only meaningful where it is in keeping with the core policies. One of those core policies is use of sources. As things are now, the sources are firmly saying "Alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock, nu metal, progressive metal". I've no doubt the old consensus abided by the guidelines fine. But since then more sources have been added. Your argument is an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy. It says "This is how things have been, that's how they should stay". But the page on consensus clearly states "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." Just because there's a consensus doesn't mean no one's allowed to change things. Fresh evidence has been brought to light, and you can't defend an old consensus that is now going against the basic policy of source use and representation (e.g. hard rock has the most sources, yet you're not including it in the infobox). Prophaniti (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I haven't been clear enough. My argument was not an appeal to tradition, which is indeed a very overused fault in logic, but the following: more than a year ago, when several users worked hard to find a consensus despite their differences, the infobox genres were changing several times a day, with violent edit summaries, and the article's development was hindered by those edit wars; after a balanced consensus was put in place, it was found that the edit wars were less frequent and much briefer than before; a consensus involving constructive discussion and compromises will be more likely to bring stability to the article. I believe we should keep the article on the status quo until a new consensus is found, which I think we should do. In other words, let's discuss this, but let's leave the article as it is for now, for no consensus has been found to support eventual edits. Do you agree with this? Zouavman Le Zouave 11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't, I'm sorry. I don't agree with the view that if something causes users to disrupt a page, it should be brushed aside and swept under the carpet. This argument has appeared on a number of pages where the genre causes certain users to change things, but I don't agree with it. Wikipedia isn't censored, and the basic premise there is that wikipedia doesn't dumb-down or change things just to make pages more stable. It reports what the sources say, and if certain users (mostly ones who don't fully understand how wikipedia works anyway) don't like that, then it is their problem, and it is up to other editors to maintain the page. Consensus, as useful as it can be, it ultimately still just editor opinion. It's the opinion of editors that, for example, hard rock shouldn't be included. But looking at the sources, it's very clearly the opinion of sources that it should be, and sources always outweigh editors.

I can understand what you mean, in that it would make for more stability. But it would make for much more stability still if we just removed the genre field altogether. Indeed, this very thing was suggested not so long ago, but it wasn't carried. If we still have a genre field, then it's up to us to make it accurate, even if some editors' personal POV doesn't match up with that. Prophaniti (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you disagree with the notion of consensus. In my mind, such a sensible edit would require strong consensus on the talk page. Without a consensus to back it up, the edit is illegitimate. I will enforce this on the article per WP:CON. Meanwhile, we should focus our attention on getting a strong consensus in the talk page. I'm not opposed to changes, I'm opposed to changes without consensus. I'd like to note the irony in your statements: you claim that Wikipedia is not censored, yet you suggest we should remove the genre content in the infobox because some people reject it. Now let's get working on that consensus. What do you think the genres mentioned in the infobox should be? You've mentioned hard rock before, and I am not opposed to its inclusion, but I'm guessing you have other opinions to share as well. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irony? Removal? I'm not suggesting removing anything: the difference between my edit and yours is I'm adding hard rock and progressive metal. That's it.

And the reasoning is something that outweighs consensus, sorry: the sources. The sources very clearly indiciate hard rock and progressive metal as just as well sourced (if not better sourced) than the other genres. So we have to include them. There could be 1000 editors against this, and it still wouldn't matter, because the wikipedia core policies on verifiability and original research overule it. The point is, anyone who forms a consensus against the inclusion of those genres is directly violating these core policies. So any consensus in favour of keeping those genres out is breaking core guidelines.

The only real room for debate or discussion here is at what point do we draw the line: how many sources does it need to be included in the infobox? Since hard rock has the most, there's no question of whether that is included. Progressive metal has 4: more than alt. metal and nu metal, and as many as experimental rock. So if we exclude that, we must exclude those too. In a nutshell: the sources say hard rock and progressive metal. So we have to include these. There is no need for consensus on this particular matter, because the basic question would be "Do we abide by wikipedia's core policies or do we go against them?". And that's simply not a question worth asking here. Prophaniti (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that instead of helping to find a consensus, which is the best solution either way, you ramble about your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. I'll simply end the vicious circle here and focus on the genre discussion, and to start off, I'll simply repeat my simple question : What do you think the genres mentioned in the infobox should be? Thanks in advance for answering this question and participating cooperatively in the search for consensus. Zouavman Le Zouave 11:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "rambling on" you mean "responding to my points and explaining your position fully". There isn't any room for interpretation here, it's absolutely crystal clear. Likewise, how did I not answer your question? I said that the only difference between our edits is I am adding in progressive metal and hard rock, you are removing them. So that is fairly obviously what I am proposing, and as I have explained, removing them is directly violating core policies. I'm happy to sit down and discuss and find consensus where it is necessary. But where things are this clear, there's simply no need.

For added clarity: my proposal is to have the genres as alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock, nu metal and progressive metal. Reasoning: each of these genres has at least 3 sources, and so should be represented in the infobox field as a significantly sourced genre.Prophaniti (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making your points clear and constructive, this is just the discussion that we need. On my side, I think there is absolutely no need for 5 genres in the infobox. If we want to elaborate on the subject of style and influences, there is a section for that in the article, where we can list the sources and add references for verification. The infobox should give an overview. I would recommend about three genres in the infobox (not counting an eventual link to the style/influences section). What do you think about that? Zouavman Le Zouave 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm in fine agreement with that. While I feel that there's not much room for discussion on the issue of excluding better sourced genres in favour of others, I do feel it's perfectly fine to discuss the issue of having fewer genres in the infobox field. I agree, the infobox does not need to contain every genre the band is termed, especially with a band as varied as SoaD. Taking a look at those genres, in terms of simple numbers it would seem most logical to put it as experimental rock, hard rock and progressive metal. Prophaniti (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think nu metal be included in that trio. System of a Down has been an important act in the nu metal movement, and countless sources classify System of a Down as a nu metal band. I however have not heard many sources classify them as a progressive metal band. Maybe we need to establish which genres really do have more sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently noticed that you have been blocked for violating the policies on edit warring. I will naturally wait for you to be unblocked to continue the discussion, but no changes will be made to the article without a proper consensus in place. However, if you make edits violating the strong existing consensus, without having established a strong new one on this talk page, like you have done here, I will revert you and contact a user with administrative rights on this wiki for appropriate measure. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal isn't actually a genre, though. Critics use that term for groups of bands that toured together. Thus, when SOAD winds up on tours with Korn, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park and Slipknot, critics automatically assume that they are all part of the same genre. It's ridiculously insane. The term means nothing at all. It's really vague, and no one even uses the term anymore, except for metalheads who need a catchy phrase to bash bands that they dislike. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

And since The Metal Observer has been found to be unreliable, we can rule out its reviewers as an authority on the subject matter. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are one to talk about "authorities on the subject matter". Who are you to say that "Nu metal isn't actually a genre"? Musicologists agree on the fact that nu metal is a musical genre. It has its own musical characteristics, and it has been mentioned and featured on genuine and reliable "authorities on the subject matter". I'm talking about MTV, I'm talking about musicologists, I'm talking about scholars, etc. You have provided no basis on claiming that nu metal isn't a genre. You have provided no valid argument. Zouavman Le Zouave 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this really isn't the place to get into it, being that it doesn't relate to System of a Down, but my basis is that all of the bands attributed with the genre are dissimilar. Nu metal is literally defined as "some bands play this way although others don't and not all of the bands share these characteristics but they all played on Ozzfest". Every article on bands associated with the term has the discussion where some suggest that the band is not a part of a genre because the genre is defined a certain way, and that particular band doesn't perform that way, with others arguing that these musical aspects are not integral to the genre, and that there are other aspects defining the musicians as "nu metal". Musical genres are based in the specific arrangements of notes and performance styles in at least a connected method (though not every band in any given genre or style sounds alike). If every band within a supposed genre has completely different characteristics defining their sound, it is not a genre. Although many musical groups are hard to define, the musical components of an act have to be similar enough for a connected establishment of a musical genre. And MTV is not an authority on musical styles. MTV exists purely to sell product. They have long been a tool of youth marketing. They sell its younger viewers things that major labels want them to believe is 'hip' and 'edgy' and 'nu'. Thus, nu-metal. It's MTV-created marketing, not a legitimate genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've been reverting several changes to the Genre of SOAD. I find it rather humorous how anyone can consider them to be Folk. As for them being Nu metal, I've heard many times of them being nu-metal, althuogh I have no proof I would have no problem with that being added to the infobox. --Skater (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

System of a Down has a diverse range of influences. It's possibly fanboyism at work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

In response to Ibaranoff24 long discourse, I will simply say that the nature and/or existence of the nu metal genre is totally irrelevant to the discussion on System of a Down and its genre displayed on the infobox. Believing in the non existence of a musical genre does not make it non existent. And considering many, many, many sources classify the band as nu metal, the genre should stay in the infobox. There was considerable amount of discussion on the subject, and the consensus was strong, backed up by active discussions, and your argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: "Nu metal" is the worst sourced out of all of the genres, and there was never any consensus between editors. And I'm fully aware of the fact that the argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But you were the one who asked for a valid argument against "nu metal" as a legitimate genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You claim that it is the worst sourced genre, and yet you fail to provide evidence. You also claim claim that there never was any consensus between editors. However, in this very page, section #Genre consensus, you will find the very discussion that led to the coming to the latest consensus. Do not edit the section without a new consensus; rather, spend your time on discussion to find a new consensus. If you refuse to discuss and would rather edit the article in a way that does not respect consensus, I will contact a user with administrative rights on this wiki for appropriate response. Regards, Zouavman Le Zouave 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nu metal" has two citations. Previously, it had three, but one of those was removed, because the source had been found to be unreliable. "Hard rock" has six citations. "Experimental rock" and "progressive metal" each have four citations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Just because it is the less sourced of their Genre doesn't necesarrily mean it's not true. I will attempt to find more sources --Skater (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bands song "War" was featured in the Playstation game Apocalypse.

How may this be incorporated into the article without using a Trivia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rion2032 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for it at all it's basic trivia and I see no point and starting one-Skater (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations from the fansite and the group's MySpace page has to go. If better sources cannot be found for those statements, they have to be removed. I asked a member of the Guild of Copyeditors to do a little work on the article. Hopefully, we can get it up to the standards of other music articles like Frank Zappa and Black Sabbath. Obviously, it looks real pretty to have a bunch of citations in the article, but if they are not reliable, readers aren't getting any verifiable information, and there's nothing that separates this from a fan page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The fansite is actually quite a reliable source, as it they have numerous interviews with the band. They may not be official but the SOAD members do seem to grant them more members then other site I've seen. As for their Myspace, I didn't see it was it there official Myspace? If so and if it is updated by the band, I would consider it reliable. --Skater (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the fansite: it can't be confirmed that the interviews are legitimate. The information has to be verifiable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • According to this, you're right about the MySpace page. But try to find a better source, because it's likely to be challenged. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Alright, I'll see what I can do.--Skater (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since Ibaranoff24 is unable to respect consensus by reverting edits that support an existing consensus, I'll be the smarter one and not revert him, keeping a version not supported by any user decision what so ever. First off, I'll just disprove Ibaranoff24 on the point that there are not sufficient reliable sources that classify SoaD as nu metal.

Enough sources state SoaD is nu metal:

• "System of a Down Biography". Rockdetector. 2007-02-15. Retrieved 2007-04-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Will Hodgkinson (2003-02-21). "Songs in the key of C". Guardian Unlimited. Retrieved 2007-05-06. Chisholm moves on to some of the nu metal she listens to at the gym, including System of a Down and Linkin Park. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Maria Armoudian (2003-02-06). "Rock's axis of activism". Salon.com. Retrieved 2007-05-06. Serj Tankian, lead singer of the multiplatinum-selling nu metal band System of a Down... {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "American Recordings/Columbia Records Release Special Limited Edition of System of a Down's #1 Album 'Toxicity'". PR Newswire. 2002-04-23. Retrieved 2007-05-06. Toxicity... was named Album Of The Year 2001 by Spin magazine who raved Toxicity is the most ambitious record yet to emerge from the nu metal scene. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Adrien Begrand (2002-07-25). "Various Artists: The Pledge of Allegiance Tour". PopMatters. Retrieved 2007-05-06. ...combining aggro punk with old school metal and the off-kilter sounds of Frank Zappa... I'm not someone who's completely unfamiliar with nu-metal. When it's done well, it's extremely powerful, but few know how to pull it off properly... especially System of a Down's two albums. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Those are sufficient numbers of renowed and reliable sources that see the band as a nu metal band for the genre to appear in the infobox. Can we please accept the fact that nu metal deserves it place on the infobox, and stop this capricious struggle to get it off the list? Zouavman Le Zouave 12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]