# Talk:Toxicity (album)

Fixed the composer. It only has 2 composers, not 3. Go to Google music for proof. Godlord2 16:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Their first album had plenty of melody, and if we have to have a comment on how Toxicity evolved their sound, it should be better than this. Theunknown42 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sept. 11 2001 refrence seems odd and out of place!
--buzlink 03:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have often seen this song title capitalised. Can anyone shed any light on this? Is it an acronym for something perhaps? Demonofthefall 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It is indeed an acronym. "All The Way Alive" or "Air, Trees, Water, Animals" (or maybe switch A words) used by Charles Manson. Burly red sheep 17:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
He had a drawing called ATWA, and Daron Malakian is a big fan of Manson. http://www.charliemanson.com/collections/atwa-01.jpg  --BuddyOfHolly (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have NEVER heard of "Arto" called "Der Voghormya". Is this vandalism? WereWolf 03:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, Arto is a cover of the song called Der Voghormya, which can explain why it is sometimes called Der Vergormya. 12.214.76.88 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this
"The genre of the album would, for the most part, be considered nu-metal. However, elements of thrash metal are apparent, as well as the use of instruments such as piano. Many lyrics were also political, such as "Deer Dance", which was written about conflicts between protestors and police in Armenia."
I think its an opinio but correct me if I am wrong.

I don't think this is a song the regular albums, maybe on certain promos, should be placed on bottom of setlist.

Is there a point for having a track lising for the Japanese edition if it's the same as the standard?
Johnny was a part of the Japanese track listing before, but now it's been removed.
I have the same question for the promo, it's already on the discography page, so is there a point to having it here besides having the times?
FallenWings47 08:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I put the promo on this page because it was related to Toxicity. I didn't add the times at first, but someone else added them. I will add the times to the discography page, and then post a link to the promo on this page, removing it from Toxicity page. 12.214.76.88 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't add the link, but removed the section entirely.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.76.88 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 
I'm Japanese, I think so that photograph is NOT Japanese. It is using Chinese Traditional letters one. 61.8.84.46 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, unregistered user here, but i'd just like to suggest that every song have a page, because albums like Kid A have this format, and i believe Toxicity is just as influential.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.181.214 (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I am from Taiwan, and I don't think that photo is Japanese, either. I think it's in traditional Chinese. Keith Galveston (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vh1.com/news/articles/1455350/20020621/system_of_a_down.jhtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.24.180.103 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC) 

From what I can see, this album isn't available on iTunes (at least in Australia) despite other System of a Down albums being there. Is this significant enough to mention? Does anyone know the reason behind it? Thanks Dgen (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that there is no mention on how political the album is. I mean, it's mostly a big bash in the head with politics right and left. --BuddyOfHolly (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not have the album's sales in the presentation right after the chart info? Also, the article's Album Info-text is very clumsily written and, additionally, the album is very politically charged, which should be stressed, like BuddyOfHolly says above. Revan ltrl (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Having hard rock labelled on this album is kind of, uh, bullshit. It's an unnecessary, vague statement of what's already there (alternative metal, progressive metal). SOAD is not hard rock, they are metal. Completely unnecessary. Disagree if you like, but there's not really an argument against it. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

'Arto' is a hidden track inside 'Aerials' and should not be listed individually, so i removed it.
Damjan456 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree; it's a bonus track, not inside Aerials but separate. These songs are listed 9/10 times and I think they should. Do you think it shouldn't be mentioned at all, as it is now?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikivo (talk • contribs) 21:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) 

http://www.allmusic.com/album/toxicity-mw0000620587
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/systemofadown-mesmerize/
There's pretty damning evidence that this album is nu metal. I call the big one bitey 17:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Toxicity (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140112020405/http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/albums-of-the-decade-system-of-a-down-toxicity/ to http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/albums-of-the-decade-system-of-a-down-toxicity/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Toxicity (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160731112222/http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20050804/news_lz1w04system.html to http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/uniontrib/20050804/news_lz1w04system.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Toxicity (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 21:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see this one at GA. —Ed!(talk) 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In case he doesn't get to this, would be happy to assist the nominator, Statik N. Was extremely active back when he nominated this, but seems a little bit less as of late. Just say the word and I'll jump in. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  17:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor:, if you could look at it, that would be great! No movement so far. —Ed!(talk) 03:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Will do, but I will finish Evanescence first - should be done tomorrow sometime today or in the next few, I'm starting to fix the outstanding issues here now. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) 04:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ed!: I believe everything that's been requested has been done. Let me know if I missed anything or something's unsatisfactory. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  23:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Overall

Copyvio, dup links and dab links all check out.
See Checklinks tool. A Revolver link is drawin a 403 error, and it looks like a link from Blender is dead.
Take another look at the duplicate links in the article. There are quite a few which could be reduced (ie, "heavy metal" is linked twice in the top sentence)
Music, writing and recording

This section could use a bit more on the specifics on the composition. As you note, Rick Rubin contributed piano to some parts but it would be good to note which, and also to indicate what instruments were use in recording. Would be good to note which songs Rubin was in, and where Serj and Daron each traded off vocals.
These are harder to find then you might think - I'll try but I don't know if I'll find it. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  17:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Another notable thing to be included: Like a lot of SOAD music, the album was primarily recorded with drop D tuning.
Kinda same thing here - I'm sure that has to exist somewhere, but I have no idea how to search for its references. All I'm finding are unreliable guitar tab forums and bleeds. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  17:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
As it turns out (!) I happen to own the official guitar tab book. Page 4 can be cited for drop D, here is the book to use for the cite. —Ed!(talk) 00:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Any details on the themes of the album artwork?
One other thing missing: I believe some of the material mentioned that was left out of the album made its way into Steal this Album in one form or another. That article does discuss a bit. Worth noting what material considered here was left for that one.
Critical reception & Commercial performance

What touring did they do to promote the album? How much did those tours bring in? SOAD article has some references.
Commercial performance

One huge thing missing: Chop Suey was on the list of songs that got banned from radio after 9/11 which caused a ton of controversy at the time, because it has been released as a single less than a month before 9/11 and, it was argued, getting the block hurt album sales. The song was fast-rising on the Billboard Hot 100 but the ban stopped it at #76, which was a disappointment for SOAD, too. The Chop Suey article has a ref for some of this, but some of it might be elsewhere. Either way, definitely needed here.
Track listing

Ref needed for main track listing.
I've never seen that as a requirement for album articles, it's the most obvious thing in the list. I would see how an article about an album which hand't been released yet could need one, but this has been around for seventeen years now. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  17:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Can do without, then, I think. —Ed!(talk) 01:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Just seconding Danny on this - usually sources aren't necessary for track lists unless an album is unreleased, or there's something particularly contentious about it. (Alternate releases/track lists etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Ref needed for the note on the hidden track.
OK, the changes look good! Passing for GA now, thank you for making these changes! —Ed!(talk) 01:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I recently found some articles discussing the many controversies System of a Down had to deal with. I thought we should add another header on this article revolving around these accusations. What are your thoughts? Should we add this or no?
Regards, jakanz (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Cleter and I would like to begin by stating that the second sentence of this article is written as follows:
Expanding on their 1998 eponymous debut album, Toxicity incorporates more melody, harmonies, and singing than the band's first album.
Now does this or does it not seem like advertisement material? Okay, I know it's important to understand that it is an expansion on their 1998 album, so I made this:
It expands on their 1998 eponymous debut album, Toxicity, the band's first album.
However, @SpaceHelmetX1 denies that my edit is an improvement. He does not elaborate in edit summary, so I call them to come forth before we start an edit war. Any input would be appreciated, thanks. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 03:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I did my statements in the edit summary. I cannot see an explicit advertisement about the album for saying that it "incorporates more melodies, harmonies, and singing" than the band's self-titled debut. SpaceHelmetX1 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Well I can. Readers only need to know that it is an expansion of their first album, why would they find the extra "information" even remotely necessary? I can tell that this extra information falls under trivia, which is not acceptable in certain situations on Wikipedia. Here's an example of trivia which is very closely related to our current situation:
#### Stand-alone trivia[edit source]
Stand-alone trivia is trivia that is about only one subject (or at least, about only one encyclopedia topic). Example (from Bert and Ernie):
Bert's twin brother Bart, who resembles Bert in every physical way (including, as Ernie puts it, "the same pointy head, cucumbery nose and no-shoulders"), but has a diametrically opposite personality, constantly making weak jokes and imitating a comedy-routine trumpet ("Bart's the name, selling's the game, waah-waah-waah!").
This information is about the subject of Bert, and only extremely vaguely connected to any other subject. It somewhat involves other topics, but only very general ones: in this case, twins.
Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in. The above is a good example: there is no reason why Bert's brother could not be mentioned without detracting from the article. However, in some cases, the information is just too unimportant. For instance, a note like "Alan Smithee's favorite color is yellow" cannot be integrated into the text without distracting from it (in other words, it's trivia no matter how it is presented, and should therefore be removed). 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 14:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
This isnt trivia, just a description of the sound and is perfectly fine --FMSky (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case, it's an excessive description of the sound, we can just refer to it as an expansion to avoid unnecessary content. You're gonna need a more valid argument than "perfectly fine" if you want to convey that the sentence doesn't contain promotional content. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Its not excessive or advertisement, in fact its very brief and sums up the sound well --FMSky (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
So you believe if the sentence wouldn't include that it has more melodies, harmonies, and singing, then the sentence would not have enough information? In other words, just mentioning that it's an expansion is not enough? Just because it's brief doesn't mean it's acceptable for Wikipedia. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 17:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
So you believe if the sentence wouldn't include that it has more melodies, harmonies, and singing, then the sentence would not have enough information? Yes --FMSky (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
"...is perfectly fine" "...sums up the sound well" "Yes"
Could you please be more clear and actually explain what you believe to be necessary to the sentence? I'm tired of hearing vague and unnecessary comments that do not contribute to reaching consensus. 🅲🅻🅴🆃🅴🆁 (a word) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)