Jump to content

Talk:List of Christian rock bands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCList of Christian rock bands is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted

Rock bands only?

[edit]

This article should be listing only rock bands. I have noticed bands creeping into this article that really aren't rock bands. Metal bands, pop punk bands, CCM bands. I would like to know if this a gigantic basket or if it should be limited? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCM is a different type of rock... just like we have hard rock and such... But the metal bands, we have a list for those. They should go. However, pop and punk bands while they are not rock, might as well stay (since there are no lists for pop/punk bands, and people who like pop and punk would just look up rock...) Darchaf (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your logic, anyone appearing in the following lists should be excluded?
These are the lists of Christian musicians of which I'm aware. So pop/punk, no, but they're included in the list of Christian punk bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dude metal and punk is a part of rock. idiot. --76.113.62.128 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if their CCM or pop or punk, since my list is more interactive than that one, and most people will just look up christian rock, I'll leave it as is. But if the band has no ties to rock, pop, punk, worship, CCM, electronic, ect.,and their genres have something to do with metal, and nothing with the previous listed genres, then they should be removed. Just ask first if it should be removed. Darchaf (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that you call it your list. There are bands, such as Skillet and others, that straddle the boundary between Rock and other genres. The Gospel list is fairly inclusive while the other three are very limited and exclusive. While rock is often a super-set of punk and metal, it's often a genre in itself. So to the anon from Albuquerque, a metal band may call itself a rock band, it's usually not going to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a band to the chriistian rock list. hokus pick. and heres the link to prove it. its even a wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokus_pick so yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.62.128 (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it general it would be a good idea to limit this to bands whose chosen genre has the word "rock" in it. That way we can avoid having pop punk and alt-metal bands cluttering up this list. If we include every genre that has to do with rock, especially punk and metal. This list will end up way too long. Also, shouldn't we be using sources here?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use sources? You mean we have to do that on Wikipedia? ;) Anyway, that is my biggest problem with this page, the lack of sources. As to your other point, just styles with "rock" in the name won't work, because you have stuff like new wave or power pop. But unless we want a very long list which would span separate pages (which I'm not opposed to), there needs to be a notice stating that all bands that are only sourced as a punk style should be on only the punk page, and the same for heavy metal. The biggest potential problem would be hardcore and metal bands being called hard rock, but I think that's just something that will have to be lived with.--3family6 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this has been a problem for years. Rock bands only, nothing more! Expect to see allot deleted without discussion since it's gotten this article nowhere in the past and individual singers are being listed, not Christian [hard] rock bands exclusively. This is nothing more than a fan page now without legitimate sources included in the article (ie. Van Morrison). Not every "contemporary" artist with Christian themes or God awareness belong here. And just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they belong on this list. Secular bands should be removed (ie. U2). I will take this to a noticeboard if edit wars and reverts continue. It's black-and-white. Cut-and-dry. Christian rock bands/groups only with reliable sources or it gets removed. CCM's definition isn't the only determining factor. Clear Christian genres recognized by Christian record labels and Christian awards/recognitions should be considered. 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria isn't bands only though. If the wording is offending you, we could move the article to a different location.
The list includes soft rock or hard rock, both are acceptable here. Metal, punk and dance musicians or bands have separate lists.
You're right that not every artist with Christian themes or God awareness belongs here. Only those who self-identify as Christian do. Your log is that if they are part of the CCM industry, they belong here.
From the sound of it, you intend to apply your own interpretation of what constitutes a list entry to the list, ignoring the definition provided here. If that's the case, you can expect the article to be locked very quickly. And for the record, it isn't "CCM's" definition, it's a definition of the editor of a book that compiled subjects that met the criteria. He used various publications to supply the content of the book. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is One Way Listed Here?

[edit]

I would like to understand why the funk/r&b One Way Band has been included here. This was a mainstream, conventional music band that never issued a Christian song. So, it is miscategorized here. I will be deleting it shortly, if I don't hear otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not listed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry they were listed as 1 Way. I have removed them as per your objection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep for inappropriate genres

[edit]

We may need to do a sweep for genres that are not to be listed here again. I noticed a few hardcore bands and the occasional metal band. Obviously bands that play some rock and hard rock should stay, but if they are not rock bands, we should keep them in the appropriate lists. There may even be some punk/pop-punk bands that belong in that list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. What do we do about non-hardcore style punk bands?--¿3family6 contribs 16:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If they're on one of these lists,
and they are not clearly rock, I wouldn't include them here.
These are additional lists
My point of contention is that while metal and hardcore are rock, they are easily discernible on their own right. But punk is much closer to traditional rock, in fact, going back to the original sound of rock was what the first punk bands attempted.--¿3family6 contribs 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I suppose when I make the sweep, I can start by listing the bands to remove here and others can contest. We start by removing the uncontested bands and then either discuss or leave the contested bands. My next step is to create a database of the bands and what lists they're on. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, good luck! I'll help when I can.--¿3family6 contribs 01:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the list that is duplicated with the metal, punk, or hardcore list. I've taken the liberty to break it into two. I have marked in bold and double indented those that I think should be removed.

-Comment: As much hard rock and grunge/post-grunge as alt metal, so they should stay. This can be backed up.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-This one has a dubious tag on the metal list. Should we discuss?--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment: According to the article, they played grunge/post-grunge and alt-rock as well.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment: Not sure. Might have enough source for rock to stay.
-Comment: Very much hard rock, not just metal.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment: Not sure. Are they just hardcore, or also traditional or pop punk?
-Comment: Older Christian metal band. Probably overlaps as a lot of early Christian metal was more like hard rock, but I don't know about this one.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-Comment: Alternative rock, straight out rock, and post-grunge.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many are also incorrectly classified: Petra is metal? Whitecross is only Rock? A lot of bands listed only as rock.

See my comments above. Just my opinion on bands that should be researched more.--¿3family6 contribs 19:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Allies from metal list since it was quite dubious.
I'm fine to leave all of the others shall we discuss further?
I'll be removing the following by the weekend as they're uncontested and no comments or opposition:
  • Blessthefall
  • The Devil Wears Prada
  • Embodyment
  • Emery
  • Life in Your Way
  • Narnia
  • Oh, Sleeper
  • P.O.D.
  • Project 86
  • Terminal
  • Theocracy
  • Underoath
  • War of Ages
CCM is not the same thing as Christian rock bands (if we're classifying this article as hard rock only) so it's very "disruptive" to include individual people/persons on a list for Christian rock bands only and should be discussed first for consensus or at least added with reliable sources. Many who do "CCM" and "worship" and are not technically a band should be removed. I see many on here that do not qualify and are not referenced. Allot of people profess to be Christian but are not "Christian rock music/bands/groups" so that can not be a determining factor for inclusion. Is this how it is on all the "list" articles? UGH! A solution may be to create a different/new article for the U2 and Van Morrison types who are "on the fence" artists (or at least create a separate section within this article listing "Christians" doing -- or who have done -- secular music and a blend of both). Thanks! 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will no longer subject myself to this brain damage. I'm excusing myself from it. I do not engage with people who spread fake info and lies to make themselves look better. I could redo this article and restrict people with my account but prefer to avoid people who want nothing more than to block others so they have control of articles. Instead of obsessing over how IPs can be blocked when they report an article with problems, just fix this article!!! Consensus for YEARS (per this talk page) has been: U2 is NOT a Christian rock band and others aren't either. Basic edits i made (punctuation, lower/upper case, linking to articles, adding a comma, etc.) has all been reverted by WG which is counterproductive and disruptive. This toxic behavior does not belong on Wiki. A simple solution is to remove the illegitimate bands/singers and stop worrying about me or past issues. There is enough talk here about U2 that readers can view without them being listed. I'll outlive a certain editor (because i've seen his pics off this site over the years and he's older). Eventually things will be right. Stop obstructing. Stop clouding judgments. Stop the smokescreens, diversions/distractions and copouts! It shouldn't take years to get an article back to how i had it in the first place all because of stubbornness! It shouldn't take years to get an article how it should be due to all this back-and-forth drama. I have no energy for this and it's beneath me. I feel sorry for the people who will ever read this article for representing ignorance and lies. The end. Happy spring & Merry Easter! 2600:1702:1690:E10:51FC:6319:40BC:D6C2 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U2 as Christian rock band

[edit]

Hi, I came to the list initially because the same editor who originally added U2 to the Christian rock band list added "Christian rock" to that band's infobox and was promptly reverted, and with just reason. My edits were in the interests of consistency, as the extraordinarily well-sourced Featured Article U2 does not indicate the band as a Christian rock band. They have been a secular post-punk band that deals with Christian themese and imagery, but never an outright Christian band (for starters, bassist Adam Clayton was never born-again like his bandmates and never subscribed to Christian ideology, and this status caused tension in the early bands for years). As mentioned in my last edit, talk to the editors over at U2 to sort out the issues regarding "is U2 a Christian rock band?", because otherwise you're going to have editors going to the band page from the list and wondering why U2 is never referred to as a Christian rock band. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to talk to those editors when I'm one of them? Besides, what it says in that article is inconsequential to the references here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it stands to reason that if a band is included on a list of Christian rock bands, then that band's article should be in agreement in that. I don't have access to the book pages you sourced so I have to take those in good faith, but the online cites are tenuous. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the band's being lumped into the "Christian rock" (something I personally don't agree with) scene mentioned in their article at all? It certainly is notable, there's tons of sources either agreeing or disagreeing with it.--¿3family6 contribs 11:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious, WesleyDodds. That was discussed in the talk page of the U2 article. Just because it's listed in one doesn't mean it must be listed in another. The point was made that in terms of Christian music, they are significant factor. In terms of their music, it's less important. The two are not mutually exclusive and do not contradict each other. they are simply a loose example of Christian rock music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is at its best IDIOTIC, citing an example of an article contradicting the list, because if that happens then it shouldn't be on the list:

Paramore

The band members are Christians and in an interview with the BBC, Josh Farro stated "Our faith is very important to us. It's obviously going to come out in our music because if someone believes something, then their world view is going to come out in anything they do. But we're not out here to preach to kids, we're out here because we love music.

This is clearly is a negation about being a "christian band"(just the members are), if mentioning a particular(hebrew) deity makes a band christian, then KISS should be on this list, do you remember "God Gave Rock n Roll To You", doesn't sound as a christian song? Citing U2 as a christian band when they openly NEVER claimed that, it's stupid, THEY MUST state that the band IS a christian band or group, it mustn't be the claim of someone else(anyone not related to the band); because that particular claim is the equivalent of some argue that U2 is a christian band. It's Iron Maiden a christian band? After all many songs were inspired on the mythology of the book of revelations... (these one doesn't have sarcasm or pun intended, seriously)

Again, since when writing something about a particular(hebrew) deity, makes the band a christian band?

I can't demand the removal of U2 and other bands from this list, clearly christian BIASED, because W it's a democracy based on truth and logic, but I appeal to your common sense, if the main article contradicts this list, it's OBVIOUS that this list is LYING!

Thanks for your attention, and please don't answer me, just edit the article as needed.--FaustoLG (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, U2 IS NOT a Christian rock band at all. No more than Van Morrison does Christian music. Elements of GOD-consciousness does not qualify them. Other bands mention God and Jesus but aren't Christian rock. Other musicians within other genres are Christians and may do a tribute/token song to God or Christ but are not considered "Christian" and U2 is not on a Christian record label. Take Darius Rucker as example. He sounds the same country as he did rock. Difference? Lyrics perhaps but mostly the record label. Same with Taylor Swift "crossing over" but U2 is not a crossover band. They should be removed from the list. They are not qualified for Dove Awards for example. They do not get nominated for other Christian music awards either. And rock bands not on this list because they are not as notable makes no sense either when we know they exist. Just saying! 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, U2 has reliable sources that support the claim that they are Christians playing rock music. The criteria you have chosen are bands in the CCM industry. That's not the criteria for inclusion on this list though. Please read the first two paragraphs that describe what the criteria is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Years Active and Reunions

[edit]

I am currently working on adding years active to all of the bands, and I was not entirely sure if reunions counted as them being active. I went ahead and added them anyways to some of them, but I need a definite answer. If anyone can shed some light on this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I would include them.
One thing, use endashes – to separate the dates. (1997–2004) Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Switchfoot as Christian rock band

[edit]

Surely if U2 merits inclusion, there is no way to exclude Switchfoot merely on their own preference to eschew the label. This has been made obvious through a plethora of reliable sources in the Switchfoot article, and is even cited as primary example in the Christian rock article. I find the hidden text warning against adding them to be disingenuous at best at supremely pretentious at worst. Hidden text does not trump Wikipedia standards, logic, and consensus. Ἀλήθεια 14:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been explaining why I made the edit when you asked on my talk page while you were adding this here. Feel free to discuss it everywhere though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for that matter, U2 has never denied that they are a Christian band. They quite sensibly stated that one member is not a believer while the others are. Completely different scenario from Switchfoot who simply use the Christian music industry to sell music. As for consensus, that they were not a Christian band was the consensus when I added it. As for pretentious... Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One week later, given no further objections, I am restoring Switchfoot. Ἀλήθεια 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue-in-cheek... Based on the logic of adding secular musicians like U2 or Twenty-One Pilots and The Fray because they claim to be "Christians" then lets add Mariah Carey, MC Hammer and Johnny Cash (among others). Ugh! Please knock it off and stick to the Christian rock category only, excluding those that do rap which are on the list as well. This list is partially ridiculous and doesn't follow proper guidelines. [1] 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:List of Christian rock bands/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I believe that this article is a well organized list of information, a complete list that is really helpful for people (like me) who want to find christian rock bands quickly. I checked all of its links, and they all seem to head to the right place, the list is well organized and put together, making it easy for users to locate the type of band they want. It also states references, which I have noticed have been a problem for certain other lists of christian music. All in all, I think that this list is in great condition, is greatly organized, and is a great asset to the Wikipedia site. Edwied (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 22:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Members who are Christians vs. being a Christian rock band

[edit]

@Walter Görlitz: Why are bands where the members are Christians but the music they make isn't described as Christian rock by sources on this list? Like Twenty One Pilots and U2. What??? In fact, if you look at the TOP article, in the musical style section it says, "Twenty One Pilots is not considered and never intended to be a Christian band," supported by sources. This is a List of Christian rock bands not a list of bands whose members are Christians, there is a difference. Bowling is life (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I have been working on this article, it has used the criteria used in what is currently the second paragraph:
The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music defines contemporary Christian music (CCM) as "music that appeals to self-identified fans of contemporary Christian music on account of a perceived connection to what they regard as Christianity". Based on that definition, this list includes artists who work in the Christian music industry as well as artists in the general market whose lyrics reflect their Christian faith or where either the artists themselves or outside sources identify members as performing Christian music. (Some artists resist the "Christian rock" label, but nonetheless are still identified under the label by outside sources.)
U2 is a good example of a band that should be on this list. Twenty One Pilots are a good example of a band that should probably not be on this list but meed the definition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But Contemporary Christian music (CCM) is not the same as Christian rock, so why would the definition of one be applied to both? Christian rock is not rock made by Christians, or rock with Christian themes, but rock that is specifically written and performed to carry the Christian faith to listeners.
I think this article's inclusion criteria should be that the band has been described by WP:Reliable sources as a Christian rock band, or its music described as Christian rock. Such an inclusion criteria will allow U2 and Twenty One Pilots to fall away, which is appropriate.
Note that the Reverend Beth Maynard, co-author of Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog, writes on page 167, "As one of the few bands that can plausibly be named in the same breath with greats like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, U2 is anything but a 'Christian rock group.' They are simply artists who find it natural to draw on Biblical imagery and raise religious issues in their work." U2 biographer Tim Neufeld found Maynard's words worth quoting in his book U2: Rock 'n' Roll to Change the World, on page 151. Neufeld writes that U2 took a path "that led them far away from the Christian subculture." That means they are not a Christian rock band. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your input here and on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I agree with you and wish that others (ie. the previous editor) would adhere to this by removing U2, Van Morrison (his own article in the "Personal life" section does not confirm he is of Christian faith or performs Christian rock) and others like John Reuben (rapper). Please realize that they do not perform authentic Christian rock. A new article should be created for individuals (solo acts) as well. And doing simple edits/fixes like with punctuation, capitalization, commas, etc. was reverted yet "anon" was blamed. This is disruptive to me and why the restriction was put on this article. It has become a popular fan list and other contributions should be removed also if not properly sourced. The CCM (contemporary not rock) definition for "Christian rock" is also weak and doesn't apply to many of these artists. There are also allot of singers/bands overlooked while secular bands are added instead. There is not a consensus (although in this section there are more against U2 being considered than are for their inclusion) and therefore should be removed. Many genres do not apply to this article and are over-linked too. So many issues yet it's being left as it is instead of improved just like other articles specific editors contribute on. It's time to stop ignoring the problems with this article and fix it, not leave it as it is or revert "good faith" contributions in an attempt to clean up problems, source legit bands and remove those that are not CHRISTIAN ROCK BANDS only. 2600:1702:1690:E10:5DB1:E494:B72E:DDE8 (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So one source arguing that they're not a Christian rock group doesn't mean they aren't a Christian rock group. You do see the criteria for inclusion is not acceptance by the contemporary Christian music industry. You can argue all you want against that definition, but until it changes, the criteria for inclusion is clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree but i'm not the one who has had issues with references. The consensus on this list and others like it is that certain individuals/bands don't belong and regardless of your spotty source(s), they should be removed. We can't include all "Christians" doing secular music on these lists. Shalom! 2600:1702:1690:E10:693E:AB91:A002:44E2 (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Zion

[edit]

[2] (primary source) [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 76.238.222.85 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as they have an article. NRT does not appear to be a staff piece so it's probably not usable. Metal-archives is not a reliable source. I'm fairly sure that the others are not reliable either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources

[edit]

As the template states within this article, there are no sources to verify the legitimacy of the bands/musician listed. Some of those argued within this talk page are U2, Switchfoot, Twenty One Pilots, etc. If they can not be cited then they can be and will be removed. Without providing approved sources that prove they are Christian rock bands/singers, they do not belong on the list. Agreeing in the talk page among two or three people does not count. Otherwise, this article and other "list" articles only becomes a list of favorite bands/musicians/singers by fans. End of discussion. 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music defines contemporary Christian music (CCM)... is about the general contemporary genre not the specific Christian ROCK BANDS and thus many do not apply/belong in this article. There is clearly no consensus within this talk page and therefore individuals and disputed bands should be removed until sourced and agreed on. 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And that's where you're wrong. That work is about Christian music from Evie through to Christian metal. Perhaps you could read the work before you assume anything about it.
If you'd like specific entries to be sourced, feel free to tag them. U2 and Twenty One Pilots have been sourced. And you're wrong about your inclusion criteria. WP:V is about verifiability. If a subject is contentions, you may tag it, but not every sentence, or in this case entry, needs a source. But sources would not hurt. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anon. This is the same editor who was editing on the Jon Gibson (Christian musician) article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, it looks like this guy has been disrupting Wikipedia for many years,[8] using IPs from around West Bend and Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, including the ranges Special:Contributions/2602:304:CEED:E550:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2600:1702:1690:E10:0:0:0:0/64. He's been blocked multiple times for disruption and personal attacks.[9][10] He's especially interested in Contemporary Christian music, Jon Gibson (Christian musician), U2 and MC Hammer. But in this case I think he has a valid point. And the editor is apparently not banned or evading an active block. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has made several invalid points. Which one is valid? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria ought to be tightened, to include only the artists who have been described in reliable sources as Christian rock groups or individuals, or their music described as Christian rock. Being Christian is not enough, nor is having Christian themes in the music. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not enough? It's a valid definition. There are definitions for CCM or Christian rock for inclusion in a subject's article, but the one here is clear and has been around for at least a decade. It rarely causes problems or confusion for those who bother to read it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You both have been disruptive and blocked as well. I have a history of your edit wars, reverts and blocks also as well as where you edit from. So what? That doesn't belong in this discussion. This is why IP/ANON get angry on here. See my recent history for the comments I've made about those involved. WG himself has removed my talk page comments, reverted edits I made only to find I was right and attacked me. The problem on this article is years old so it is "urgent" actually. Get to it and remove U2 and Van Morrison and John Reuben for starters. An article called "bands" should not include solo acts. Change it or move it. Stop being difficult. Stop being disruptive and prejudice towards IP users. The past reverts and blocks on me were WG's fault. I was nice to you both originally. Leave me alone. Stop following me. Stop changing all my edits and comments. This is why I use an account you don't know about. Your attempts to have control and monopolize articles is not appreciated. Posting personal info is also disruptive. I can post where you both edit from as well and WG has already been exposed off this site. Stick to the topic on here. The past has nothing to do with this. I can link people to all your mistakes and blocks as well and you not be able to delete it. Time to grow up. Oh, and don't assume gender on here. How do you know i'm a guy!? I won't read your talk page messages so have at it. I don't care what you have to "say" so just fix all the problems on this article instead of being bullies. 2600:1702:1690:E10:388F:8A9D:EDC1:B48 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this is another attempt for you to harass me. I see. Create an account and let's see how long you last. Anons and IPs have no reason to get angry on Wikipedia, and you, who have stated in the past that you choose to stay anonymous (but offer no reason, but I'll just say it's so you can't be blocked).
I removed your talk page additions on my talk page, because that's permitted. I also attempted to interact with you on the articles we work on, but you stated that you "won't read [my] talk page messages". You can't have it both ways. I'm really waiting for an admin to realize you're WP:NOTHERE to edit cooperatively or to create a Wikipedia and range block you.
There's nothing urgent with changing this article to please you, so stop being difficult. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe when you stop lying, being petty, hounding/following (ie. Ya Mo Be There among others), auto-reverting, sabotaging, blaming, accusing, harassing, bullying, not paying attention, being lazy on articles, acting like you're always right and all IP/Anon are wrong, blocking accounts to get your way, monopolizing articles, manipulating others, going to noticeboards for every little thing you don't like, leaving derogatory edit summaries, attacking me/others, being rude and sarcastic with your comments (on this page as ONE example), denying, provoking others to the point they get angry at you, digging up the past (years old), not admitting you're wrong and make mistakes as well, pretending you know it all, etc. etc. I've had accounts before and have them now. You'll never know because you've abused your "powers/privilege" on here. I've mentioned it before and will again since you must have forgotten... There is no working with you. There is no compromising with you. You're difficult. You're frustrating. I have to dodge you on here. I have to IP to avoid you. Hell in a Bucket and you are the ONLY two that gave me problems/grief. You give others stress as well. I can pull all your past history and post here but this article is about removing people who do not do Christian rock. You do not pay attention. You jump the gun and overreact. You have been guilty of so many edit wars I've lost count but these are the most recent errors you've made of 100s over the years I've logged (notice YOU deleted my talk page comments on Jon Gibson not your account and you rarely give a reason for reverts or go to talk pages to discuss and get a consensus before deleting good faith contributions so get people to join your bandwagon all you want but I will not be apart of your double-minded insanity that makes you seem nothing more than a con/fraud): [11][12][13][14] p.s. You showing wiki shortcuts doesn't impress me much. I know stuff too but I don't showboat it. If you're a real Christian (per your user page) then be kind. You seem to forget the basics on here as well. Sad an IP has to remind you. Fyi: calling you out isn't disruptive! 2600:1702:1690:E10:51FC:6319:40BC:D6C2 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I resent your claim i'm not here to "build an encyclopedia" when 90% of allot of articles are because of me over the years (many you're unaware of thankfully) and have gone unchanged for the most part. I did most of Gibson in fact. Most of yours have templates on them for multiple problems yet years go by without remedies. But you go ahead and take the credit and blame me. You get upset if I put you in your place or tell the truth then try to get rid of me. You know that's how Jesus died. 2600:1702:1690:E10:51FC:6319:40BC:D6C2 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some IPs used in the past were shared or public and does not mean I was the one being disruptive nor guilty of blocks. Fyi. 2600:1702:1690:E10:75C7:E169:902F:D0C8 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bands not individuals

[edit]

Allot of people (solo artists/musicians) are listed who are not classified as Christian rock bands. For that matter, if they are considered, then add Dion or BJ Thomas because they released Christian [rock] music. You'd have to add Barry McGuire and Elvis as well. This list is nonsense... Prove them or remove them! If not I will. (p.s. i'm a huge fan of VM but he's not a Christian rock band plain and simple!) 2600:1702:1690:E10:75B8:C380:B2C1:980E (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, if the term "bands" is throwing you off, we can have a move discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, at the time that you wrote this, the lede clearly stated "Based on that definition, this list includes artists who work in the Christian music industry as well as artists in the general market whose lyrics reflect their Christian faith or where either the artists themselves or outside sources identify members as performing Christian music." (bold is added for emphasis). So this list is about artists, and that included individuals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final closure/contribution:

[edit]

From now on I will avoid articles with my IP and/or account that WG watches with the exception of JG. I will continue to edit other articles from my account or IP without his knowledge due to constant difficulties on his part. Ploys to silence IP users and still not fix the errors within this article (which is inconsistent with improper reverts by WG on various articles) is an example of poor quality by the editor with the motive of thwarting positive efforts by others trying to improve articles. Due to inappropriate obsessions (more concerned with how to block IP instead of fixing this and other articles), editors are more focused on IP's past history and locations (which does not affect the above talk page complaints) than resolving the issues with this article as reported here and on noticeboards. Regarding being accused of past blocks and disruptions or poorly written/sourced edit claims as disproved by recent productive and acceptable contribution history by IP/Anon per fake/false/speculative accusations by User:Binksternet (see above) and User:Walter Görlitz (see above and on talk page history of editors/IP): there is absolutely no proof those are all me in the past as they are different accounts and/or IPs working the same articles that were literally ruined by other editors set out to remove good faith content (see past edit history and edit summaries on articles edited by myself for instance). Also, IP addresses can be diverted to other locations to throw off would-be stalkers/trolls so the locations given above are not accurate/correct/true. Setting up fake IP locations instead of being private in order to edit on Wikipedia is to avoid being blocked by users such as WG only determined to silence those giving him any sort of "bothersome" work load or to prevent taking any control of articles away from him. Additionally, the above users have been blocked MORE often/frequently than contributing IP/Anon user (i.e. myself) in the past with the same amount of time or longer on Wikipedia over the years (and to avoid threats and harassment or stalking by WG and Hell In A Bucket for instance) as proven here from various locations: [15] (disruptions/harassing/edit-wars/reverts/trolling by Gortz) [16] (disruptions/edit-wars/reverts by Binky) P.s. I will no longer read/respond on this article but as a reminder, problems with this article include: 1. article is for bands but now includes solo artists/individuals and loosely defines "Christian rock" as CCM 2. Van Morrison and U2 are not Christian rock bands 3. John Reuben is a rapper 4. individuals listed in multiple genres are not Christian rock bands 5. punctuation, lower/upper case, linking and other fixes needed 6. poorly sourced 7. not sourced/referenced/cited 8. article controlled/monopolized by WG and consensus is ignored 9. content in dispute not removed 10. list does not comply with Wikipedia standards/guidelines 11. multiple years with same disputes still not resolved 12. templates not addressed/removed/resolved and are many years old 2600:1702:1690:E10:75C7:E169:902F:D0C8 (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC) [17][18][reply]

Responses
  1. No, the article states "bands", but the article states "artists". As stated above, we can move it as it seems to be a stumbling block.
  2. Sources provided for both Van Morrison and U2 that supports that they are Christian, which is what the definition is.
  3. John Reuben is listed as alternative rock, but I see no support for that. Would consider a RS to stay in.
  4. Too vague to respond to.
  5. Caps were already addressed. I can check for further instances. Not sure what punctuation problems exist. WP:NOTBROKEN
  6. WP:V states "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." It doesn't make sense to source every entry. I've seen lists of musicians and bands like this simply state that the article contains sources. If that's not enough, we can jump through the hoop and source ever entry.
  7. How is this different than 6. above?
  8. Already not controlled or monopolized. I watch for disruptive editors and I stop them from doing so. If you think that's not the case, you know where to report me, as you've done it before.
  9. No content is in dispute as it's reliably sourced. Seems like a repeat of 2. and 7.
  10. Not sure which standards or guidelines are not being complied with. Seems like a repeat of 7 and possibly 5.
  11. Too vague to respond to.
  12. No timeline to address templates.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WG, I wasn't going to reply again but since you're seemingly being more professional I will throw you a bone and hopefully regardless of our conflict of interests and me being mislabeled disruptive by you and others simply because i'm editing via an IP, here are my responses to your inquiries (please let's stay focused on this and not point fingers and blame others or bring up past issues that do not relate to this specific topic):

1. Yes, the article title should be changed to "Christian rock music" or "Christian rock bands and solo musicians" (artists/singers), etc. Something to that affect or move individuals to a different/new article or section. This can be confusing to some people assuming it's only bands (even though singers are backed by a band but not credited as such).

2. Where does it say in that source for VM that he specifically does Christian rock? Nowhere. Him becoming born-again is a side note and not a qualification for this list. He does secular music. How can you not see this and not agree? You would reject it if you knew nothing about him. Let's just admit that. And I can't read the book for U2 but i'm sure it does not say they specifically do Christian music because they do not. He has been featured with Christian singers on Christian labels but that also doesn't count. We also know others qualify and are not added still, like Dion, BJ Thomas, etc. (if including single musicians) i'm a fan of VM and U2 but right is right. This seems very biased.

3. John Reuben is not a rock singer even if his songs incorporate that such as "X-ray" because he is predominately a rapper (hip hop) artist. He is classified that in media and sources and record stores or music sites. He may do some "rock" sounding music but that doesn't matter. Run DMC are rappers even though they had "rock" in their music. See my point? MJ is pop but he had rock and rap in his music as well. Hammer does gospel music but not a Christian artist even though he's a Christian. JG does rap and hip hop too as well as rock. But you wouldn't classify them as Christian rock music unless you're using "rock music" generically which means the article should just be called Christian music bands/singers.

4. I meant that singers/bands have genres unrelated to rock listed so how is that Christian rock music? Such as Celtic, hip hop, R&B, etc. It's like proving they are not "Christian rock bands" so why have them added? This should be an article for just rock or all genres of Christian music. Pick one. Yes, move or change it.

5. Yes, there were problems which I fixed and you reverted them resulting in pre-existing mistakes still (as on BG/JG incorrectly which is unproductive and disruptive since you didn't take the time to see what I did apparently which is why I said you're not paying attention):

(cur | prev) 16:21, 10 March 2018‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,899 bytes) (+49)‎ . . (General formatting by script) (cur | prev) 16:19, 10 March 2018‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,850 bytes) (-5)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 2600:1702:1690:E10:ACEF:FA5E:12EF:7314: I was paying attention and you caused an edit conflict here. . (TW)) (Tag: Undo) (cur | prev) 16:17, 10 March 2018‎ 2600:1702:1690:e10:acef:fa5e:12ef:7314 (talk)‎ . . (37,855 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎S: pay attention and be consistent + this article will be reported and reconstructed) (cur | prev) 16:11, 10 March 2018‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,850 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Removed per WP:POINTy anon) (cur | prev) 16:01, 10 March 2018‎ 2600:1702:1690:e10:acef:fa5e:12ef:7314 (talk)‎ . . (37,862 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (matched with 2000?) (cur | prev) 15:57, 10 March 2018‎ 2600:1702:1690:e10:acef:fa5e:12ef:7314 (talk)‎ . . (37,866 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (→‎S: dash + move) (cur | prev) 15:52, 10 March 2018‎ 2600:1702:1690:e10:acef:fa5e:12ef:7314 (talk)‎ . . (37,870 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎E: links to Hardcore punk) (cur | prev) 15:44, 10 March 2018‎ 2600:1702:1690:e10:acef:fa5e:12ef:7314 (talk)‎ . . (37,856 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (lower-case plus genres are over-linked in sections and not strictly rock music)

6. I'm fine with only the musicians in dispute being verified. If everyone is in agreement with others then leave them but when someone disputes someone like I came along and did then it's right to source it. Yet some other lists like the List of Christian metal artists and List of Christian hardcore bands have a source for every entry. It's work but it's also proper. If not, at this point properly source those in dispute that are mentioned on this talk page. Take time to just knock it off your list. Not just U2 and VM. Also Switchfoot, Twenty One Pilots, The Fray, etc.

7. Some are poorly sourced (ie. VM) and some are not at all. That's what i'm saying. And in the lead/intro there are tags for verification/cites required, etc. Rolling Stone is an excellent source BUT doesn't claim he is a Christian rock band, in fact to the contrary several times within the article.

8. I am not one of them even though your judgment is clouded and you've been jaded by other IPs in the past resulting in your bias/prejudice towards them which is common on Wiki and understandably many times but not always.

9. U2, VM, SF, 21 Pilots, individuals not bands, etc. were also in dispute in the past is what I was stating.

10. Stand alone lists (proper procedure not followed or templates wouldn't be active or so many talk page discussions about what constitutes a Christian rock band, groups to include/exclude, sources/cites/references, etc.) in addition; reverting good faith edits without consensus and talk page discussions without complying.

11. According to this talk page, years have gone by with the same discrepancies and disagreements about artists, sources, etc. Sometimes they were included, re-added again, removed again, etc. I know it's easier to just revert stuff and be stubborn and keep things than hassle with talk page resolution but it's what Wiki requires so either be in or out. Blaming IPs is not a defense when others in the past have argued the same thing I am (see above topics as a refresher).

12. Templates should be resolved, the sooner the better so it complies with Wikipedia standards and can possibly be a featured article which I believe this article applied for but was rejected. Just in general, it's a good idea to fix problems than leave them alone. It's tacky seeing templates on articles as well. It comes across as unreliable if someone reads it for research/information. I guess my point is, why have problems if they can be fixed instead of leaving poorly sourced (or not sourced) entries and other grammatical/punctuation errors? I tried to fix them but you reverted some/most. It must be annoying to see a bunch of fixes and assume they are disruptive but if you investigate them a little more then you'll see they are for good. At least from me. I have/had good intentions since the beginning and don't like seeing articles with problems even if there is no technical timeline to fix them. It makes people think no one is updating the article and can doubt/question it's legitimacy.

P.s. I have made no denial of my IP changing automatically as it does (there is a reason for this unrelated to Wikipedia). It is not a way to avoid detection or being blocked but that should not be your motive. It's ill-informed if you assume this when i'm only trying to contribute productively and fix problems instead of create them. In the defense of "anon" users and "newbies" (which i'm not), inconsistency and not giving IPs/Anons the benefit of the doubt first and double-checking their sources/edits is why they get so angry and then turn disruptive. Allot of problems could be resolved if more experienced editors would only take the time to help them and build them up not disrespect/belittle them and their contributions. Just a tip. Call it playing devil's advocate or an experiment but you've been tested many times with me yet failed as with others (case in point). We both know what those edits have been such as on JG and BG. Please take a little more time to investigate or either lighten your load but your "faith" should come first if you truly claim to be a Christian not serving Wiki and making enemies. Don't get me wrong, i understand your dedication/obligation to Wiki, i'm just sharing some wisdom. But enough about that. I hope my above input helps you fix these issues that have been going on for years here and on other articles you mind/watch/edit. I'm typing/writing this politely/respectfully and trust you will do the same from now on. Take care and best wishes! 2600:1702:1690:E10:75C7:E169:902F:D0C8 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional observations:

[edit]

1. Lead singer of Creed is added but not the band itself? Yet VM and U2 are.

2. The intro of the article even lists bands only not solo acts as examples. Although I now realize it's including individual singers, the article should be "artists" then (or "musicians" not "bands" exclusively) like the list for Christian metal is.

3. I don't know enough about some of the people added on the list to argue but this idea that a "fan" contributes to an article as done by WG and HIAB on JG is ridiculous because people who know allot about a subject edit on articles all the time including them. Those templates should be removed/resolved in all fairness and with all due respect. They are outdated and incorrect.

4. This is minor but dashes between active years are longer/shorter on the list. I know these issues exist on allot of articles/lists but since I've seen this one i'm pointing it out as well for cleanup.

Peace. 2600:1702:1690:E10:5800:576:9EC4:80DC (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will probably add Dion (80s), BJ Thomas (70s/80s) and others eventually. 2600:1702:1690:E10:89B:5DE:8ED4:EFCA (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King's X

[edit]
Moved from user talk: Walter Görlitz

How do I go about having a band removed since "edit summary" doesn't allow for all the citations?

Historically, as much as I would love it to be true, King's X is not a Christian band or has directly proclaimed to be. In 1991, during a Rolling Stone interview they implied being Christian believers individually but did not want to be identified as a Christian. The only proclamation of them being a Christian band was by the public.

Where is the appropriate place to submit findings supporting this for review?

Svinohio (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Svinohio: Because this list has a very broad definition (see the introduction to the article) if several sources believe that a subject is a Christian band, then we will include them. That can cause problems. The best option in cases like this is to ask for references to support the claim rather than removing the subject.
Whether the band themselves consider themselves a Christian band or not is immaterial. Switchfoot, for example, asked not to be assigned the label in the early 2000s, apparently at the advice of their management, and later had no problem allowing themselves to have the label.
Whether some individuals or groups think that a specific band isn't a Christian band is also immaterial. For instance, conservative Christians might argue that a Roman Catholic artist or band are not Christian because they don't have a "born again" moniker. You can replace "Roman Catholic" with "Seventh Day Adventist", or one of several other denominations, or even claim that because a member is "gay" they can't be Christian. You could also replace "conservative Christians" with other groupings.
In other words, if reliable sources that are independent of the subject make the claim that a band is "Christian", we can assume that the subject can be listed here. If the band is nominated for awars in the Christian music industry (Dove Awards in the US, Covenant Awards in Canada, etc.) or they chart on Christian charts, they can be considered "Christian". If they are charting on "Gospel" charts, they can appear in the Gospel artists lists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chevelle as a Christian Rock band

[edit]

I felt it was better to address this on the talk page because I could see a legitimate case being made for early in their career. However, I would disagree with the notion that Chevelle is a Christian Rock career as they don't consistently write songs about their faith or generally incorporate it into their music. They aren't signed to a CCM label right now, but were early on in their career which I suppose is why they are included on this list. Each of the members has commented that while they are Christian, they don't use these themes in their music and that people may consider them Christian rock because their first album was carried in some Christian bookstores. As such, I don't think they should be on this list. LABoy12 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The things you mention are not the criteria for being considered a Christian band of any sort. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then what defines a Christian band? Christian Rock is simply music that focuses on Christian faith, which Chevelle doesn't and never has. LABoy12 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends which reliable sources you ask. The definition that we've used for inclusion comes from Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (First printing ed.). Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. p. 13. ISBN 1-56563-679-1. What I propose is that we define contemporary Christian music exactly the same way we define all other genres. Such labels are always audience-driven and are based unapologetically on perception, not content or intent. If I were writing a book on punk rock, I would find out what people who call themselves fans of punk rock like to listen to. The lead reads, "music that appeals to self-identified fans of contemporary Christian music on account of a perceived connection to what they regard as Christianity." That usually means the band is signed to a label that is part of the Christian music industry, has one or more musicians (or lyricists) is a self-professed Christian (of whatever stripe) or many other options. It has been in-place since July 2012. I copied it from another list that has since changed.
So based on that, your definition is quite narrow and uses either a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical definition based on behaviour. Many otherwise Christian artists would be disqualified. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Christian Rock bands and Christian Rock artists that are not mentioned here.

[edit]

Need to add Gideon’s Army, Larry Norman, Glenn Kaiser Band. There are many more. I will try to come back for more recommendations. J.P.Dill (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Farner had a band under his own name.

[edit]

Someone else brought up artists whose names were the front of the band. Mark Farner is one of them. Larry Norman is another, and perhaps one of the most important pioneers. J.P.Dill (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starset as a christian Christian rock band?

[edit]

The only sources claiming that Starset is a Christian rock band is this Wikipedia article. Dustin Bates statet that there are Christian bands that promote Christianity and the bible, and then categorized categorized Starset as "a science band, promoting science and the tenets of The Starset Society". (https://musicfeeds.com.au/features/with-starsets-vessels-dustin-bates-seeks-to-bring-out-the-scientist-in-all-of-us/) Also a Christian Forums article (https://www.christianforums.com/articles/is-starset-a-christian-band/#Is_Starset_a_Christian_Band) states that they cannot call Starset a Christian band. I can hardly imagine anyone making a connection between a singing about physics and religion. Joatl (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. No sources are given here or on their page describing them as Christian, neither does a search find anything. I have removed them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Christian_rock_bands&oldid=1211960463"