Talk:Jars of Clay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jars of Clay article.
Article policies

Wouldn't it be best if the albums were made into their own articles? Since there's already so much text there, there's no reason not to do so. Any rejections?

The only problem being that that leaves us with several album articles quite longer than their band's article. Sirnickdon 06:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. I'll try to work on it now, as well as expand the band history with a little more early history. Thief12 01:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unmistakeable Jars of Clay

This section appears to be not NPOV by wiki standards. Some of it is factual, but other parts of it seems like just opinion. Want to rewrite, anyone??

Edit: I've tried to rewrite, and I rennamed the section to something more neutral, however I'm not sure if it should be kept.Decafpenguin 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added new Info

I was surprised that this article made no mention of Blood:Water Mission or the band's multiple Grammy wins. This info has since been added, along with an early history section and some other minor additions.

Im sure "flood" was on the US top 100 singles. can anyone check that out?.

Ive added "Album Charts & RIAA Certifications" & "Single Charts" sections Dan, the CowMan 06:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They only used programmed drum loops on their first album. They used actual drums and bass since Much Afraid, not since The Eleventh Hour. For this same reason, using the "programmed drum loops" label in the introduction is misleading (given that only one album of six studio albums uses them).EscapingZoo 06:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Band and New Album Update

Jars has a new touring drummer named Jeremy Lutito, and their new touring bass player is Gabe Rushavul. Also on the Jarchives message board, Dan Haseltine has reported a September 5, 2006 release date for "Good Monsters". He said it will contain 12 songs.

[edit] POV & Weasel Words

I'm wondering if the section "Jars' Belief" should be tagged for POV and/or weasel words. Especially troubling is

  • Though this hasn't spared them the backlash from some Christian groups, they have stood firm.
    • backlash is POV, especially considering that it is undocumented.
    • some Christians weasel words
    • stood firmPOV
  • The Jars of Clay are also considered role-models by many Christians for their morality, which does not line up with the "rock star" stereotype.
    • considered...many Christians Weasel words
    • "rock star" stereotype, POV
  • Their music lacks moralizing tones and focuses on the Biblical theme of redemption.

I'm hesitating tagging it as POV or Weasel words, but this section should be cleaned up or deleted. SonPraises 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made some fairly significant changes, incorporating some of the recommendations above, and cleaning up some additional problematic content.
  • The headings were written like a press release, and some of the sections consisted of a single short paragrasph, so I merged them and rewrote some of the headings to be a little more encyclopedic.
  • I pulled some quotes from their NPR interview to completely rewrite the "Beliefs" sections. I believe it's much more neutrally-worded now, with no OR.
  • The entire "Musical progression" read like an essay summary or press release, so I merged the magazine quote and deleted the rest.
  • I also removed the filmography notes for two former members. I know they don't have their own articles, but the article on the band is not the place to detail the brief film careers of former occasional members (unless the films are particularly relevant to the band).
  • The album chart table wasn't worth the space, considering the repeated content (see the HTML comment I added). I feel that both chart position tables should probably be merged into the respective discography sections. They don't add much on their own.
Comment welcome. --Fru1tbat 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Belew's role

Belew only produced two songs on the debut, not the whole album. This is verifiable from that record's liner notes and should probably be made clearer. I'm not that involved with wikipedia so I thought I'd leave this to someone who is.

Belew was the executive producer Thenext 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RIAA Certification

Hi, I'm just trying to verify the facts in the RIAA certification table. However, I'm unable to find any info regarding the supposed 'Gold' certification of two albums - 'The Eleventh Hour' and 'Who We Are Instead'. I've checked the searchable database at the RIAA website and did not find anything. Could anyone verify this information? If it is indeed factual, please indicate the appropriate references.

Also, Platinum certification for their first album is 2x according to the RIAA website. However, in two places in the article, it is listed as 3x platinum. I'd be glad if someone could help with verification for this, too. (Ajcfreak 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok... So 75.32.135.3 has removed the 'Gold' certification for the two albums I'd mentioned earlier. However, how about the 3x platinum certification for their first album? Anyone has verifiable factual info for that? Ajcfreak 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What some people do is presume what the certifications are based on sales, but RIAA doesn't count offshore sales, so anything they're sold outside of the USA doesn't get included, so if they're sold 3 million copies of the debut album, but only 2 1/5 million are in USA, then they're only certified as 2x Platinum. People make that mistake with our Aussie ones too, but it's too presumptuous. Another thing to note is that even though an album/single may have moved enough units, so individual albums and singles haven't been certified for one reason or another. --lincalinca 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I've found plenty of sources (e.g.: [1] and [2]) which state that the highest that the highest their first album has achieved is 2x Platinum, not 3x. This is also the same, still, on the RIAA website. I think it's safe to go ahead and bring it down to 2x. Kneel17 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm changing it now. aJCfreak yAk 06:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... there seem to be contradictory sources on the other RIAA certifications. On one hand you have the RIAA which says that only Much Afraid is Platinum and Jars of Clay is only Gold, and then you have websites [3] which say that the group has 5 Gold, 2 Platinum and a Multi-Platinum?! I don't know which to believe, to be honest. RIAA seems to be the most credible, though. Should we just side with them and make this the final answer? Kneel17 08:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think RIAA should be considered as the RS here. As far as I know, they're the most reliable source with regard to their own certifications. :) aJCfreak yAk 08:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I swear I'm not losing my mind... either my connection was weird or RIAA wasn't able to transfer all the information to my browser. Would someone verify this for me? Here's the list I have, and I'll change the article back but someone needs to make sure for me. Jars of Clay-2x Plat, Much Afraid-Platinum, If I Left the Zoo and Furthermore are both Gold. Kneel17 22:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to be wrong. Looks like you've got the right info. However, there is a discrepancy on the RIAA website itself with regard to Much Afraid - and I guess this is where community consensus can help us. Let's see what all the editors decide:
Much Afraid is certified platinum twice - once on 9th March 1999 and 7th August 2000. (Please search for Jars of Clay here for verification) This usually means that it's gone multi-platinum (2x) as in the case of the album, Jars of Clay. Do we take this as 2x platinum certification or simply 1x?
As for the other albums, here's a listing of their certification dates:
Album Certification Date
Jars of Clay Gold 29th April, 1996
Jars of Clay Platinum 4th September, 1996
Jars of Clay Multi-platinum (2x) 26th January, 1999
Much Afraid Gold 20th October, 1997
Much Afraid Platinum 9th March, 1999
Much Afraid Platinum?! 7th August, 2000
If I Left The Zoo Gold 2nd August, 2000
Furthermore - From the Studio, From the Stage Gold 6th January, 2005
From what I've heard on message boards and seen in articles, they haven't mentioned anything about Much Afraid being Multi-Platinum. And even before this whole 'verification of certification' the album was always put as Platinum... the only album we had people changing and debating was Jars of Clay. I'm pretty sure the RIAA would have put the 'Multi-' in front if it was... I'd say we keep it at (1x) Platinum. For the reason it has Platinum twice? Maybe a glitch? I have no clue! :D - Kneel17 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Redemption songs.jpg

Image:Redemption songs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian #1 Singles

Recently, a user from an unknown IP has removed all singles from Good Monsters from this list, stating that none of them ever reached the top slot. Is this a fact? Where is the source for the singles from the previous albums? Anyone? aJCfreak yAk 17:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted the anon's edit, so the songs are back on the page pending a reference or reason for the deletion of the Good Monsters singles in the first place. I don't know if they made #1 or not, but they shouldn't be removed like that without a reference given. Vbdrummer0 06:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Where are they now? who erase them again? I was the one who add them in the first place, and I'm sure Dead Man & Work reached a very high level (constantly been heared in the radio), I'll add sources later, There is a River has been just released as a single, so I don't know if that counts. I'm adding them again... Fca780 11:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've spent a good hour or so trying to find any evidence/references which point towards the singles reaching #1 on any charts. However, I've found none. The only thing I've found out is that Work is currently at #30 on Hot Christian Songs Billboard chart. Its peak position was #27.[4] If the above link does not work, just head over to Billboard.com and search for Jars of Clay. So I guess we should leave the CHR#1 charts for now.... As edited by the unknown IP. aJCfreak yAk 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose we leave the Good Monsters singles up for now (short term, a few days maybe), while everything gets sorted out, just to keep things stable and avoid any unintentional changes. I can't cite this as a real source, obviously, but I know one of the band members personally and he said something to the effect of going #1 with at least one Good Monsters single, but he could've been mistaken. I'll root around on the intertubes a bit. Vbdrummer0 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Discography page?

I'm thinking that the discography section is getting a little lengthy and is pretty much consuming the whole article. So I propose that we transfer most of the information to a separate 'Jars of Clay discography' (similar to the Relient K discography page) so that this page centers more on the band and their history instead of which single did the best on what chart. We'd keep the first gallery under discography, but then the rest would find it's home on the separate page. Kneel17 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is very necessary right now, I don't see the discography section taking a lot of room within the page. Though, obviously, a more-detailed article can be done, containing Jars' discography. --FCA 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughts. For FA/GA status, I guess it helps if the discography is moved to another article, cos this then limits the number of Fair Use images used within the article. Second, I guess it would improve the overall quality of the article if we write about the progression of their musical style, etc. in the Discography section rather than simply listing their albums. Then the separate article for their discography can be created. :) That's ma two cents. aJCfreak yAk 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
hey, I agree, good ideas! --FCA 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Anyone else? I propose that we get a consensus of a few more people before making the change. :) aJCfreak yAk 07:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just regarding havign the images in the discography, it's borderline on not being fair use anyway. Otherwise, yes, someone should be bold and move it. Actually, if nobody else does, I'll do it. --lincalinca 07:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. See Jars of Clay discography. In the process, I also created Category:Jars of Clay. Now, if you guys are serious about making this into a Featured article, you'll have to (not a suggestion, an imperative) create individual pages for the band members, as a criteria to Featured article for band's and musical artists is that its members are as sourced as is available in an encyclopedic tone (my words, their meaning). I'm sure it's not too hard to find out. I know just from skimming the surface years ago that they're all married, Haseltine's done some side ventures, and things of that nature ought to be included on theur individual pages. Right now, more is known (on wikipedia) about the backing members of Michael Buble's touring band than information is given about Jars, and that ain't right! --lincalinca 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just so you guys know, and to get the ball rolling, I've created the page for Stephen Mason. It's nothing special, but it's definitely a start as a basic sort of template as to how each of the members' articles ought to be. --lincalinca 13:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
wow, great job linca! I'm sure there is enough info to make the other guys' articles. Great and necesary idea indeed! Thanks for letting us know! --FCA 07:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I just did Dan Haseltine earlier today, but it needs more work also, but it's definitely a start. I can't find a reference for info there, nor can I find a DOB for Dan, but we've got it off the ground now. After the member pages are done, we should make member pages for Aaron Sands and the other touring members. They're certainly as notable as many bands' support members. For a start, though, We still need one for Odmark, Lowell and I'd say it'd be appropriate to make one for Bronlewee also.
Y I've just made the pages for Matt Odmark and Charlie Lowell, but all of the pages are now there, but are stubs. I've yet to properly link them inthe page, but they're in the infobox for a start. --lincalinca 13:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I just did Matt Bronleewe. There's really quite a lot about him, and even more I haven't included yet, until I can improve it a lot. Anybody got a picture of him? ANyway, it's better than before, that's for sure. lincalinca 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalisim situation with fake "fifth" JOC member

An anonymous user with the IP address: 76.185.121.36 has been practicing Vandalisim on Jars of Clay's wiki, in the different sections of Band Members, Touring Members and Template claiming that a person with the name of Tyler Jarvis is on percussion as a fifth Jars of Clay member. Tyler Jarvis is NOT (or has been) a Jars of Clay member of any kind. I have made several edits (before I found out that this IP address was the same for all of this kind of changes) in the wiki and restore it from this false information. This person has been doing the same, with the same name in different wikis too. I undo them and tried to do that here but Wikipedia didn't let me because of the edits I did. Please report again if there is any other vandalisim change and report it here and to Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Thanks for your cooperation. --FCA 04:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change of Jars of Clay main image

Not because it's ugly or doesn't fit the article, but it doesn't show the 4 members of Jars of Clay (Charlie Lowell is not in the picture) and do shows the other two touring members, which is kind of ironic. We can replace it with one of [these] which will be used for the PR of their Christmas Album. The current image may be used also in the 2000s subsection in the Band history part. What do you think? --FCA 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this motion.... ;) but... FCA, you mentioned that we can replace it with one of [these].... If I may ask, whese pix where you referring to? Your partially bemused Wiki-friend, aJCfreak yAk 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd second the use of another image, however wouldn't suggest using a non-free image because if we ever want to elevate the article from B class to GA class or ever to FA class, be it possible, we can't use non-free images, as the band is still going. Only if it was impossible to get a picture of the band together would it be permissable for a "good" article. What's wrong with the picture of JOC that shows them getting their degrees at Greenville? --lincalinca 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The image with JOC getting their degrees is not current and wouldn't represent the band as it is, oh and I forgot about the link to Jars' press images for Christmas album. Here. Linca are you sure about not using this images been non-free? --FCA 07:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean, wwe can use them, but ultimately, I'd like to improve the article to become a Featured Article, but a milestone on the way to WP:FA is to become a good article, of which the criteria for use of non-free images is only applicable where it's for a band who're no longer together/deceased or part deceased, such as The Beatles. Because Jars are still together, it's quite easy (for some) to be able to get a photo of them, and so non-free images aren't acceptable (and press kit shots are considered non-free as they're copyright to, generally, the photographer). --lincalinca 09:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Linca's right I guess (as always). If a free pic can be found, that's fine. If not, I think the current pic does look pretty cool. I say we keep it till we get a better one and focus on improving other areas of the article. aJCfreak yAk 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah of course we should continue improving the article, but I easily don't this as a distractor, so I'm trying to find a recent and better one, current one does look cool but doesn't represent the four members, which should be the greatest focus/use of the image, not to look cool only. I'll try to find something in Jarchives and I'll see what I can find. Thanks guys. :) --FCA 23:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

Hey there people! I've just done a bit of an adjustment in the awards section and kind of stumbled upon an impasse in that there's: (a) got to be more awards than this (I don't know them all in the US) and (b) nominations for some that aren't noted here, or some that may only be nominations could be listed as wins, since the stie's being referenced only indicate nominees, not winners.

If anybody could come and help out with that, that'd be great. lincalinca 02:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Member biography

I was doing a little checking on the biographical pages on Odmark and Lowell. What I gathered was that they both were born in New York City, but "originated" in Rochester, NY. That's like being born in Los Angeles, but originating in Medocino, CA; born in Toronto, but originating in Sudbury; born in Paris, but originating from Nice. In other words, one isn't born somewhere, but originates eight hours away (as much confusion several out-of-staters have on the location of Rochester and Buffalo, people who originate from there are born there, not New York City).

So my question is: where are they from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paploo (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Citation

Follow this link to complete a request for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

I added a lot of citations to this article and would like to have it reviewed. (Arewwjd (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC))