Talk:Land of Confusion

message: Does anyone seem to notice that In Flames does a cover of this song, and its incredibly cool?
That's your personal opinion. The In Flames cover is mentioned in the article just above the section about the Disturbed cover. Vendak (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In Flames Cover!

message: There are 2 shots of an actual human being in the video (not the same person in both). Most people will get the real baby's hands at the end, but do you know the second? (answer in a day or so) CFLeon 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second shot is the guy walking between the oversized heads, towards the end? Sansmalrst (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  In checking this page, I discovered that I never gave an answer to this. Near the end of the chorus, when the puppets are bouncing up and down, there is a very brief view of the live Phil Collins. CFLeon (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: I don't think the Disturbed version should receive its own page.  It wasn't that long that it required a split, and it helps to read about the original video and then the Disturbed video to see the parallels.  I'm not just saying this because I'm the one who's worked on this article from creation to now, but there are many songs whose original and cover versions are on the same page; only in extreme circumstances are they separated.  Any thoughts on this? Anthony Hit me up... 13:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disturbed did release its own version of the song, however, I can't say for sure whether or not that particular version warrants its own page. See Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) — Mariah Carey covered the song and released it as a single. There is still not an independent article on that cover version. The cover is included as a subsection of the main article. AreJay 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It seems stupid and a waste...another example of this is the You Can't Hurry Love article which was also merged with Phil Collins' cover version...regardless of the "changes" disturb made to this song, it doesn't need a seperate article! --Skully Collins 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree on merging it, a seperate article doesn't make sense. However, the disturbed section should not be trunctated too hard, nor be downgraded to the bottom of the page. --Twsx 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not sure I see that the song is important enough to warrant an article at all.  The Disturbed cover certainly doesn't merit one in its own right.  In Flames did a cover, too, which pre-dates the Disturbed release, was far better, and that doesn't have its own article.  Cain Mosni 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I mean, Todd McFarlane made the video, the guy is a comic book legend! --Striver 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopaedia, not a fan magazine.  Whether you love it or not does not validate it's need for a separate article.  Cain Mosni 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know :( Just saying it anyway... Ok, how about this: since it is a remix of a notable song, made by a notable band, with video from a notable artists, it is a notable video in it self. Better? --Striver 23:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Excepting that whatever you say of it, it is still only a cover.  And it's only a song.  As I've said - I'm not convinced that the original is notable enough to warrant an article.  Cover versions certainly don't.  Besides - the Disturbed article is a scene-by-scene transcription, not an encyclopaedia piece.  Without the transcription, there would be no substance to it at all, barring a couple of lines saying that Disturbed made a cover, which was accompanied by a video directed by McFarlane.  It's not like (say) Bohemian Rhapsody or Do They Know It's Christmas which had very different but very particular cultural impacts that merit exploration in an article.  I happen to like it too, but in the end it's just another disposable video which had its 15 minutes of fame on MTv.  It's been; it's gone.  It was of no consequence.  Non-notable.  Move along, nothing to see... Cain Mosni 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :( *sad face*. Im not familiar with what makes a music video notable, so i'm moving on...--Striver 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disturbed split

message: OK, it's clear that the consensus was for a merger, so I went ahead and did it.  But the Disturbed section is little more than a play-by-play of the video (I should know, I wrote it).  Originally I wanted this to start heading towards FA status; that has obviously been derailed.  I'm a little busy with law school in the real world, and can help when available, but can someone bring this page closer to at least good status?  I was almost there before Disturbed released their cover, which threw the whole thing off (not that I mind, they did a great job with it).  Anyway, sorry to rant, but at least we're back to one solid article (the Disturbed page is now a redirect to this one). Anthony Hit me up... 01:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally believe this article can still become a featured article.SOADLuver 14:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of debate 

message: I removed the section title "Song's meaning," which attempted to provide an interpretation of the song's lyrics, as a blatant WP:NOR violation. (It was completely unsourced.) Interpretations of artistic works must come from reliable sources, not from Wikipedians themselves. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Song's meaning section

message: I removed Anna Nicole Smith from this list.  Even though I haven't seen the video in years, Ms. Smith didn't grace the cover of Playboy until the spring of 1992, and the world had not heard of her when the video was released in 1986.Cvieg 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Famous People and Characters seen in the Video

message: In the Disturbed video, at about 3:26, is that Ron Paul? Tim Long 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ron Paul

message: I have added a split tag to the beginning of the disturbed cover section.  It just doesn't seem right that the information about this version and its video should be restricted to the bottom of an article on the original version.  It also seems odd to me that this was even merged into this article in the first place.  Right now the word counts of the main parts of the Genesis version vs the Disturbed version are 775 to 996 respectively.  With nearly a thousand words (not including image captions and templates and the like) it can surely be split from the Genesis version's article again and stand on its own. Robotman1974 23:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above discussion.  For one, the Disturbed section can be seriously pared down; there's more information on describing the video than there is on anything else, so it's mostly fluff.  Not to mention that cover versions (with very few exceptions) are included in the main article as a rule.  Therefore, I oppose a proposed split, and instead propose a cut-down on the Disturbed part of the article. Anthony Hit me up... 03:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We've been all round this topic already, and in fact a separate article was re-merged only a few months ago, precisely because it isn't a work in its own right.  Disturbed only produced a cover version (albeit a good one), which is nothing more than a deivation of the original.  The song is still the same (barring one line), and there is utterly no reason (other than fan worship) for considering it a separate entity. Most of the wordage is just a transcription of, and unsupported essay on, the video most of which could stand to be removed - this isn't a film catalogue, after all. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "fan worship" comment above, I did not suggest the split because of the reasons your comment would seem to suggest.  For the record, I've never heard the Disturbed version nor seen the video.  My concern is that the current page looks like (and basically is) two separate articles that have been stuck together.  I still think they should be split, but if the consensus is to keep them this way, I'll abide by that. Robotman1974 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I didn't mean to imply that you were the worshipful fan in question, merely that the excessive text concerning this particular cover version was a result of such, and that rather than hiving it off it should be drastically edited down to being what it is - merely one stage of the the song's popularity. -- Cain Mosni (talk||contribs) 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the split tag from the article. Robotman1974 15:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split the Disturbed version to its own article

message: Disturbed Video information
Can some one get some info on what happens in the Disturbed Video and not just the style?--User:blood sliver 20:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disturbed Video information 

message: I removed the following from the section on Disturbed's cover:
* "The world is also portrayed as some sort of totalitarian police state, whose military is attacking the people of New York.  This may reflect a worst case scenario post 9/11 Patriot Act type world that many believe the world is becoming."
This smacked of original research to me, since it wasn't backed up with any kind of citation. Unless we can get an actual citation for it, the statement is too inflammatory for the article. Even with citation though, it probably should be re-worded to have a more neutral POV.
Umbralcorax 13:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True and the statement wasn't entirely accurate either.  The totalitarian police state is actually the force behind the governments who we don't see until the end of the video though we see his flag (a black $ sign on its side in a circle of white in a field of red--echoing the flag of Nazi Germany) through out the video.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR? 

message: Is anybody verifying all these additions of people appearing in the video?  I recommend that each of them be tagged with "Fact" tags, where the applicable reference would be the time in the video where the individual appears. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 00:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly - though I'm tempted to say we just ditch the list altogether since none of it is verified, unless someone can find a written reliable source that documents who was featured in it (I mean, it's going to take quite a bit of work to document the times when each person appears, and that would surely border on original reseach anyway...) Mdwh (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard when you have people here who seem to have really strange ideas about what POV entails messing with the description.  On top of that if you go to Disturbed's offical website and click on the Youtube link it will take you to Disturbed's offical YouTube channel.  If you then show all and go to page 2 you can click on the Disturbed version of Land of Confusion.  Now this is a video posted by the copyright holder through a distribution channel of their choice and yet for some loopy reason we can't link to it???  Please tell us how this makes any degree of sense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like very much to know where each individual appears.  Would be nice to even hear from Phil Collins on this Jokem (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of reference for the list of celebrities is problematic. The sheer number of puppets and the fact that they are caricatures makes it virtually impossible to prove or refute a claim. It also makes it difficult to combat vandalism of randomly added celebrities. For example, the list includes Thomas Gottschalk, but I can't find him anywhere in the video and don't see why a political music video would include a German TV presenter. On the other hand, at 0:34 that looks like Willy Brandt, but he's not in the list, and how can I be sure? So yes, I think the list should either be sourced, or it should be removed and the celebrities mentioned in the descriptive text of the video (as already done). Sansmalrst (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Shortcut on this discussion: If there is something about a subject that is not covered by independent reliable sources, it is likely not noteworthy and is certainly not verifiable. I have boldly removed the list. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals in the video

message: Reading this, it suggests that it's the G8 that is shown, however in the flags in front of the building are "Capitalist Nazis" (for lack of a better word), Turkey, Canada, Russia, the USA, France, the UK, and Japan.  Since Turkey, but rather Italy is part of the G8, not Italy, how does that work?  Also, Germany's flag is not represented, unless you want to count the "Capitalist Nazi" flag, which was clearly modeled after the Nazi Germany flag.  The flags rather seem to mostly be the G8, except that the colors have been "washed" to ensure that all the flags only have Red, White, and Blue on them (ok, a touch of black from the "Capitalist Nazi" flag).  It's likely that Italy was "hijacked" in this case because their flag is red and white, rather than the Italian flag of green, white and red.  The green would likely throw off the color scheme they were looking for, as well the prominent black and yellow of the modern German flag would throw off the color scheme. (The black from the "Capitalist Nazi" flag is fairly subdued by the rest of the colors matching the rest of the flags.)  I think the intentions of matching the colors to Red White and Blue is to make the flags hit more to home for an American viewer.  Perhaps?  Anyways, that's OR...  Still, how can it simply be called a group representing the G8, when Germany and Italy are not portrayed, and Turkey is portrayed, and the most prominent flag particularly emblazoned all over the fat money man is a satire of the Nazi Germany flag?  Another reason just popped into my head for ditching the Italian flag, with the Italian flag out of the way, when the $ of the "Capitalist Nazi" flag momentarily glows green, the effect would be lost or diminished by the earlier appearance of green in the video. Looking at the video, there are only a few places where green shows up, helping this theory.  Also noticed in this watch through, when it flies past the flags, Turkey is still there, but so is China, also displayed is somewhere in China ruined.  Only 5 countries are shown in the "war room", the US, the UK, France, Russia, and Japan.  Thinking about it, all the countries shown had some involvement with the international fiasco which was the US trying to find support for the invasion of Iraq, with the UK and Japan on board, but France, Russia, and China against.  Turkey was also a prominent player in the Iraq war when the revoked fly-through rights to the US during the Iraq invasion.  Now, before you say "Germany was opposed to going into Iraq also", all the countries mentioned had a monetary reason to invade.  France, Russia and China stood to make a lot of money if/when embargoes were lifted, and the US, UK and Japan standing without much of a reason to go in.  Turkey was mostly afraid of the Kurds getting independence, and provoking their own Kurdish population to revolt.  Germany on the other hand pretty much was like "Hey, we tried invading other countries... we wouldn't recommend it." Just some random thoughts.
Summary: G8 doesn't really work because Italy and Germany aren't there, while Turkey and China show up as minor players. --Puellanivis (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  G8? Ok, some of them, but not all of them 

message: It occurred to me that the title might be a reference to something else besides the song's narrative. Maybe something biblical? Paradoctor (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the title a reference to something? 

message: Are they really that "bizarre" to today's generation? They are caricatures, meant to be comedic exaggerations of the real people they are based on. I think "bizarre" has a negative pejorative that's not really in keeping with (the alleged) wiki neutrality. 68.225.171.64 (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bizarre" puppets 

message: At 0:34 in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU9lv_WqK6k): Is that the older Willy Brandt?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.79.215.74 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willy Brandt 

message: The Madonna puppet has a belly button with lips. Is that worth mentioning in the article on this page? Cbsteffen (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madonna Puppet 

message: The article mentions a caricature of Will Smith in the video. Is that really him? It’s not impossible, but seems highly unlikely (he was still a teenager at the time, and his rap group’s first single—-which was only a minor hit—-was released in the same year as “Land Of Confusion”). Smith really didn’t hit it big in the mainstream until 1988 or so. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:58A8 (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: hi my name is Crystal Ann Henderson Help I understand all of my careers at hand and these neverending voices with me has made me stall my time I might be needing help with getting my kids back to me I don't know yet but I have a still stumbling story to tell of who I am and how I came about but first thing first Help me. 24.234.102.249 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Smith