Talk:Anberlin/Revisiting the Genre Issue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Revisiting the Genre Issue

I have attempted to garner the editors of this article twice already, and have had no response. However, I still do believe that my issue deserves a chance, regardless of how many times it has been revisited. Unfortunately, this is a wiki, so I will continue to edit the page until someone decides to speak up instead of simply reverting it back.

Two of the basic rules on Wikipedia require articles to remain neutral and verifiable. Listing the band under the incorrect genre goes against both of those rules. The neutrality of the article is sullied by listing the band as Christian Rock because that isn't fact, it's opinion. Opinions don't exist on Wikipedia, and anything other than fact is not neutral. The information is also unverifiable. Anberlin has clearly stated that they are NOT a Christian band. What could be more factual than that? It came straight from the horses mouth. After that, I can't seem to understand how any sort of argument could possibly exist.

I have absolutely no problem with the section of the article that discusses the bands affiliation with Christianity. It is clearly verifiable, and clearly neutral. That section of the article should absolutely remain intact.

As stated above, I will continue to change the genre until someone chooses to respond to me. If you would like a quick refresher on the 3 basic rules of this site, I would urge you to click here.Xenosagian (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think your argument deserves a chance, so I'm going to remain neutral on the matter for the moment and wait to see what others think about it. I won't revert your edit to the article (at least not for the moment), although I will say that typically a discussion is held about a questionable change before the change is made, and another editor may see fit to revert it simply because consensus has yet to be met on the change. Still, you did make an effort to discuss the matter and received no reply, so I can understand the reasons behind it. One thing I will say, however, is that genres by their very nature tend to be at least somewhat flexible and opinionated. There is seldom if ever a set guideline as to what is required of a band, an album, or a song to be considered one genre or another. I honestly think that's what most of the problem with the genre debate stems from. Some people listen to the music and hear what they describe as "Alternative". Another person listens to them and hears "Christian rock". Still another hears the song and thinks "Indie" or even "Emo". While we're all listening to the same music, each of us has a different mental construct as to what each music genre is and is not, and I think that's why there's so much debate over the issue. —Mears man (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Unfortunately Xenosagian, although I do agree with what you have stated, I will have to revert your last change on the genres. A mediation as already been made; it may be found here. Now, on to the genre. I do not believe they should be classified as "Christian rock," and here are my reasons:
  1. As stated on Christian rock, Christian rock "is a form of rock music played by bands whose members are Christians and who often focus the lyrics on matters concerned with the concept of the Christian faith." The first part of it is true, all the members are Christain. To decide if the later is true, lets look at the definition of "often". Often is defined as "many times; frequently." Some synonyms are repeatedly and customarily. [1] I have looked at it before, and 10 out of 31 songs from their first three albums have a Christian reference in the song (this does not include intros or instrumentals). I do not believe this counts as "often" or "customarily".
  2. Christian rock also gives one of thier definitions as, "...bands that explicitly state their beliefs and use religious imagery in their lyrics." This is not the case for Anberlin. Barely any of their songs state thier beliefs.
  3. Another definition is, "...bands [that] perform music influenced by their faith or containing Christian imagery." Anberlin does not perform music based on their faith. Most of their songs have nothing to do with Christianity.
This is my take on this issue. --Pbroks13 03:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with the above arguments. I was a bit unhappy with the result of the mediation, but I nonetheless accepted it. For the reasons stated above, I don't think Christian rock is really worth listing, but yes, the "Involvement in Christian music" section should remain intact. Liscobeck (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you all took the time to respond. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm unfamiliar with the mediation and dispute resolution request systems. I will look into it sometime in the future, and hopefully this issue can be resolved. Once again, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 05:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

While I personally tend to think that Anberlin falls under the "Christian rock" genre, I'm not so steadfast in that belief that I'm going to argue the point if consensus concludes otherwise (assuming the Involvement in Christian music section stays, at least). Before making any changes, though, I'd give it a couple more days just to see if anyone else has anything to say about the matter. Speaking about changes, if we were to decide that it would be best to remove the genre from the infobox, how would we go about doing that? Do we simply have to reach consensus here, or is there some special process to bypass the decision of the mediation? I will say that, if we do remove the genre, I'm sure we'll have to deal with people adding it back all the time. Then again, we have to deal with people constantly removing it now, so maybe the difference wouldn't be that great after all... —Mears man (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was part of the original mediation, and still stand be the decision that was reached of Christian rock being listed. You can go here[2] for the reasoning.Hoponpop69 (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this again, I hate edit wars. But the interview that someone put on the references has Christian clearly stating that Anberlin is there to let others "hear the name of Jesus" and uses a load of other ways to reference that they are a band "hanging out" with bands of mainstream success and "other Christian bands." I think that's as far as I am going to go in depth with this. IronCrow (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide to filing a case, the second step states, "The Mediation Committee and requests for mediation is the second-last step in the dispute resolution chain on Wikipedia." It goes on stating that there should be a discussion on the talk page first. If we do decide to change the genre again, we should archive this discussion to somewhere clever like Talk:Anberlin/Revisiting the Genre Issue. --Pbroks13 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mears man. I am willing to wait around a few days to see if anyone is willing to challenge my opinion. If no one feels compelled to engage in a discussion, or is sick of debating the issue, I think that reaching a general consensus with the remaining parties users would be fine. However, if anyone would like to re-open the case for mediation, I would be more than happy to take part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont feel that a mediation is nessesary, yet. We should wait for anyone to have a strong opposition to removing "Christian rock." If that occurs, then we should discuss it here first, and if not consensus can be made, then we can open a second mediation. --Pbroks13 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that Hoponpop69 has voiced what I consider to be a strong opposition to the removal of the genre, and I think that we should be careful not to overlook their views. Just because Hoponpop69 didn't restate everything that was said in the mediation doesn't mean that the arguments made there hold no ground in this discussion. —Mears man (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
But that's just the thing. That was an old mediation. What I hear from his last comment is, "I'm too lazy, so just read it here." If I do remember correctly, he left in the middle of the mediation; he never finished his argument. If we are to discuss this again, we cannot simply say, "Look at what I read, and that's my argument." We should bring up our old points again as well as new ones. --Pbroks13 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's been a few days. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Hoponpop69 is the only person with a strong opinion against changing the genre and is willing to speak on it. However, I am not sure that they are still watching this page. In any case, what do the rest of you think should be done? If Hoponpop69 is interested, I think we should have a debate about it here before going to mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still here, and I'm up for a debate.Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's do it. But first, should we have the debate here, or should we have a sub-page? --Pbroks13 05:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the Christian rock genre from the article, despite the fact that we've yet to come to consensus on what to do about it. Could someone please put it back in accordance with the mediation? I know we might eventually decide to remove it, but it should stay until that point, and I don't want to violate the 3RR. Thanks. —Mears man (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to report him (contradictory to my edit summary), but if he continues, I'll be sure to.
On another note, are we gonna going to debate the genres, or... what? I need a consensus of where to make the debate. --Pbroks13 06:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't care if it takes place on this page or another page. I think if it were on this page others might be more likely to come along and comment (which may or may not be a good thing), but I really don't care. —Mears man (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, completely forgot to check the talk page before stepping in. I've reported the 3RR violation as well as returned the page to its previous consensus version. I have no problem, however, with establishing a new consensus. I am in weak support of leaving Christian Rock as a genre; whether or not it is removed, I strongly support leaving in the section which details the band's thoughts on the genre as well as other sourced opinions on the matter. Jpers36 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is a vote good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 March 2008


Ok Heres what i have to say on this topic. First off I think we should Pop Punk, and Emo to the genre due to the fact that many websites i have been on and seen label the band punk pop/emo. Now The Christian genre. I think that yes we should take Christian rock off the genre, but we should add to Bands faith thing that they aren't a christian, but most of the members of their band are christians. Most of the time when i think of Anberlin I think of Switchfoot, The Fray, and Flyleaf. All these band aren't christian bands, but the members of the band are. User:Skateremorocker

What are these sources listing them as pop punk and emo?Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To Xenosagian: Is a vote good enough for what? Generally speaking, voting is discouraged on Wikipedia (see WP:VOTE). Instead, decisions are usually reached through consensus (see WP:CON), which I feel we're working toward now. If you were referring to the issue of whether or not the genre should be listed, I think it would be best to stick with the consensus method, but if you were referring to the matter or whether the discussion should take place on this page or another page, then I think a vote might be appropriate for that situation. —Mears man (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mears_man, thank you for signing my post and letting me know about the voting. I was referring to the issue of removing the genre, but as you stated, that's discouraged. I understand that we are working towards consensus, but I don't think that we're actually getting anywhere. Hoponpop69's view and his opposition's cannot co-exist on any level, and for that reason, I don't think that a compromise can be made without completely disregarding one side's opinion. What are your thoughts on this?Xenosagian (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... there does seem to be little room for compromise in a situation such as this, which leaves little room for progress, so perhaps it would help to see if we could find some common ground that we can agree upon. Would it be safe to say that we can all agree that it is debated whether Anberlin is a Christian rock band or not? Yes, the band has said that they do not classify themselves as a Christian rock band. Some people and sources share the band's sentiment and do not label them with the Christian rock genre. Still, other people and sources continue to describe the band as being Christian rock, and apparently there is a relatively high level of ambiguity surrounding this issue or we probably wouldn't even be engaging in a discussion such as this. Perhaps if this is a point on which we could all agree then we could move towards editing the article so that it better reflects this. —Mears man (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I can agree to that.Xenosagian (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To hoponpop69. Pop Punk[1][2]. Also for Emo[3][4][5]. As you can see they are pop punk but way more emo. User:Skateremorocker

Of course it is argued whether Anberlin is a Christian rock band or not. Here is what I've seen as common reasons why they should be labeled "Christian rock":

  1. They are all Christian
  2. Some their songs contain Christian references
  3. They have some sources that label them as so

I beieve almost everyone can agree with that. Now, here are reasons why those might as well be discarded:

  1. That matters none.
  2. Approximately 1/3 (exactly 10/31 from 1st three albums not including instrumentals, B-sides, ect) of thier songs have a Christian reference. Christian rock "often focus[es] the lyrics on matters concerned with the concept of the Christian faith" (Christian rock). Often means "many times" or "frequently". In proportion to the amount of songs that they have released, they often don't use Christian references.
  3. They have some sources that don't. The sources don't match; Reliable sources aren't matching up.

So using any of those arguements really does not work. --Pbroks13 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really suggesting that the band is Christian rock because some sources describe them as such, but rather that there seems to be a lot of ambiguity surrounding the issue (as you said yourself, "The sources don't match"), and maybe the article could be changed to better reflect that. Just because there's some conflict between the sources that cite them as Christian rock and those that don't doesn't necessarily mean that the genre should be removed altogether, but it doesn't exactly mean that it should stay, either. Maybe some sort of compromise could be met in this area. Perhaps we could change the "(see below)" to something stronger that indicates that the genre is disputed, perhaps by changing the word to "(disputed)" or something similar with a link to the section. I'm pulling this one from the previous mediation, but maybe we could also create some sort of separate section in the infobox that says something like "Also described as:", under which we could list Christian rock (possibly still with the "(see also)" or "(disputed)" thing), and here we could also list other genres that keep popping up, such as Pop Punk or Emo (the argument I've seen in the past regarding these genres has often been quite similar in the fact that some sources describe them as such and some don't, but there's usually been less of a heated debate surrounding it simply because the discussion is not religious in nature). What are everyone’s thoughts on these ideas? Does anyone have anything else to offer? —Mears man (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you, just take Christian rock off the genre,but we add to their page saying oh they aren't a christian band but they have christian members. Remeber what i said their like Switchfoot, The Fray, and Flyleaf . Skateremorocker (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The "sources" comment was mainly directed to Hoponpop69; I thought he would be more involved. Anyways, I agree with "(disputed)" more than enything else. Not feeling the "Also described as:" If everyone can agree with that, then we should be in good shape. --Pbroks13 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the lack in response (almost a week now), I'm going to change "(see below)" to "(disputed)" as Mears Man and I have both thought would be a good idea. If anyone objects, please undo the change and comment here; if not, I will archive this discussion. --pbroks13talk? 22:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.