Talk:Switchfoot/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Archive created 31 May 2008

Contents 1 EPs 2 Good Article 2.1 To do list 3 4:12 4 GA nomination 5 Good Article nomination 6 Walmart Soundcheck Live Sessions 7 Question 8 Fan Support 9 Awesome Band 10 Christian Rock 11 Lowercase people 12 Oh! Gravity. Single 13 Singles 14 discography 15 New album? 16 Website Messed Up 17 Additional Information section 18 Alignment with Evangelical Christianity 19 WikiProject Christian music importance 20 Evolution

EPs

2 EPs need to be added.

• the iTunes-exclusive "Live - EP" featuring DYTM, On Fire, Ammunition, The Beautiful Letdown and More Than Fine. (release date: Mar 9th, 2004)
• the free-with-the-preorder-of-Oh!-Gravity EP "Oh! Switchfoot." featuring "Sound In My Mouth", "C'mon, C'mon" and "Oh! Gravity. (live)" (release date: Oct 17th, 2006)

can someone please add these for me, since I don't know how to and am too lazy to figure it out? thanks! -.phil. 06:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually just added a mention of the new EP to the Oh! Gravity article, not quite sure what you are looking to do. Never heard of the other EP, as it lacks any different songs I'm not entirally sure if it warrents it's own article --T-rex 07:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The other EP is a live EP so they're all previously unreleased stuff. You can find it on iTunes. I meant we should have an "EPs" section between "Albums" and "Singles", like other artists on wiki. -.phil. 19:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, calling for the removal of "Oh! EP." from the "Albums" section (as its not an album) and putting it along with the live EP, in a separate EPs section. Thankyou. -phil

I agree, I don't really know anything about that live EP they do though, does it have an official name? --T-rex 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, iTunes just calls it "Live - EP". It was an iTunes exclusive. -.phil. 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

For about half a year now it has been my belief that this is one of the better articles about bands on wikipedia. As such I am currently preparing to nominate it for "good article status". One of the requirements is that the article is stable and that's why I've waited until after Oh! Gravity released to do so. I'll probably do this next week first there are a few things to fix up. --T-rex 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To do list

• See above discussion about a second EP

YRe-write Oh! Gravity section as it is a bit fragmented

• expand first 3 albums (a little)

Yfix up related articles (Learning to Breathe, The Beautiful Letdown, Oh! Gravity. (song), and This Is Your Life (song))

• Would the use of the lowercase people logo fall under "fair use" for this article?

Yrewrite (and possibly retitle) "other projects" section to phargraph form (lowercase people, should be lowercase)

• others???

I have now gone ahead and done so, lets hope for the best... --T-rex 16:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I don't want to break the flow on this article, and I can't find a place to put that "We are One" peaked at #2 on the R&R Christian CHR was the 8th most played song on Christian CHR radio in 2006 according to the radio program "Weekend 22" chart that aired on the weekend of January 7 2007. Royalbroil ^T : C 16:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

for the most part we don't cite non billboard charts so this is probably best left off the article see here --T-rex 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

4:12

hey, I've removed this bit of trivia again. Blogspot and epinions do not come remotly close to being considered reliable sources. If MTV or Reuters or someone along those lines starts talking about it then it would deserve a mention, but it looks to be nothing more then random thoughts and conspiracy theory that arrises when looking at numbers to long (4 8 15 16 23 42), once you remove that all that is left is that the song 4:12 lasts for 4 minuites and 12 seconds which isn't incredablly origional, although it may have needed a mention on the oh! gravity page if it wasn't already so obvious from the track listing. thanks for reading --T-rex 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

alright, agreed. -.phil. 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know the site is no longer on Blogspot, and that Tim Foreman mentioned www.switchfeed.com on their MySpace blog today (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4441967&blogID=220645292) - the very first time the guys have "officially" endorsed a fansite or fanblog. So I thought you might wanna keep that in mind, because it is my hope to see the site added under "External Links" eventually, but I won't be the one to do it, since I own/run the site. In all humility, I think its the most popular and respected among SF fansites or fanblogs (well, its the only fanblog) out there right now. So whenever you think its upto the standard, you might wanna consider listing it here. Thanks. -.phil. 09:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 09:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

Before this article can reach GA status, fair use rationales are needed for all of the fair use images on the page. The album covers in the tables should probably be removed based on the recommendation at WP:MUSTARD. ShadowHalo 00:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough, but the real question is why is it WP:MUSTARD??? The jump from music to yellow hot dog sause baffles me --T-rex 07:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's from the expression "cut the mustard". --3M163//Complete Geek 10:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although even that isn't too clear. Back to the images themselves, I personally agree that this is an excessive use of fair use images, but a quick check showed that about 60% of GA's on bands used them anyways, I'm going to try to find the editor who added the images to the page and see what they think... --T-rex 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects I'm removing these images --T-rex 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's supposed to stand for music standard. Okay, it's bad. Hey, I didn't come up with it.  ;-) ShadowHalo 06:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

Hello. I have had a read through the article and have placed the nomination on hold currently due to the images used. The main image Image:Switchfoot.jpg is marked as replaceable fair use while a free use image, Image:Jonforeman.JPG is used elsewhere. Perhaps the second image could replace the image listed for replacement? That could even be a temporary measure while a better image of the complete band could be uploaded. I will give until next Monday, 22 January 2007, to make my decision. The article is in very good shape! Wikiwoohoo 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try contacting any users on Flickr with images on the band for permission to use their images? From personal experience, an enquiry to a user with such an image usually brings a positive response. You would need to make sure you gave full credit to the user. Wikiwoohoo 18:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to get a second opinion of the photograph for a while, and have gotton a total of zero responces. I guess the short term answer will have to be to delete it and to bring up the argument on a simiular image elsewhere, to try and set a precedent one way or the other. I have in mind two images to upload in it's place, both inferior, but both under cc-by licenses, thanks --T-rex 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that you have sorted the photographs it is much better. I have decided the article does pass the Good Article criteria and have added it to the Good Articles list. Congratulations! All the hard work that has gone into this is on show. Wikiwoohoo 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is still looking to get better concert photos I have one from about a year ago during the Nothing is sound tour the url is http://picasaweb.google.com/mennomateo/SwitchfootConcert/photo#4978169624273354770 it in great condition not blurry at all, almost profession quality

Jedi canuck 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are explicitally willing to licnece the photo under a creative commons or other free license, then I'm sure we could find a place for it on wikipedia (the Chad Butler page appears to be a prime canidate) --T-rex 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Walmart Soundcheck Live Sessions

[1] if you go this website you can download tracks and watch live sessions of them performing acoustically. So should this info be added to the Oh Gravity album or should be it be added to this article, or a possible seperate article and added to the discography. --DJREJECTED 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a promo thing, I think they've done it before and will do it again... although look at the trivia given on the right when watching the soundcheck, it appears to be lifted from our fine page here... --T-rex

The article is looking nice, but could be improved in a few areas.

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, "trivial information is not appropriate on Wikipedia. If a particular fact is worthy of inclusion, it should be placed into proper context in the body of an article. Do not use the Trivia subheading."

There are some red wikilinks throughout that should be removed or the articles created.

In some places the band members are referred to by first name only. They should be referred to by last name per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). -- Pepsi2786 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) - moved to talk page by T-rex

Question

Why are there 4 footnotes for a sentence in the first paragraph about the band being "enegetic"? Are 4 footnotes necessary for this one sentence? --Mjrmtg 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, the whole into section does need to be shortened a bit. --T-rex 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan Support

Should there be a section on how Switchfoot keeps venue prices low, how they encourged fans to rip Nothing is Sound on their computers, to share the bootleg albums from the !Oh Gravity Tour -- Jedi canuck 05:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome Band

This is an awesome band! I have four of their CDs and they just flat out rock. I know some don't like their power pop sounds, but I think it's what makes them unique and different from other uber-testosterone bands. Sherlock32 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, cool. Go buy their other two albums, and feel free to help improve this article... --T-rex 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Christian Rock

It seems that there is some angst regarding Christian Rock being included in the genres and it appears there has been some discussion before. Here is my reasoning for adding it to the genre list:

- [All Music Guide] lists them as being primarily rock genre with one of their styles being [Alternative CCM], aka Adult Contemporary Christian. This is not unlike how AMG lists [Thousand Foot Krutch] as primarily rock but also with Christian-related styles.
- Their music is sold at at least two national US Christian stores: [Family Christian Stores] and [Lifeway Christian Stores]. (Sorry for not directly linking to actual results, but doing searches for 'Switchfoot' at both sites will yield CD results.) Secular (non Christian) bands aren't sold in Christian stores. Even CDs of bands that include Christian members (e.g. Alice Cooper, Iron Maiden, U2) aren't sold there. In other words, there is a critical level of 'Christian-ness' that must be attained (and maintained, cf. Sandi Patty's unfortunate trials) to be sold at such stores. (And yes, I hate even writing a sentence like that, but it is the truth.)
- Their music has been included on at least three Christian Rock compilation albums: [X 2003 Experience the Alternative], subtitled "30 of the Year's Best Christian Rock Artists and Songs!" (emphasis added); [X 2005], subtitled "17 Christian Rock Hits! 2005; and [X Worship 2006]. That last one is particularly telling, as it is a very recent Worship music album and includes Switchfoot's song "Spirit". It doesn't take much of a leap to realize that the [lyrics] of that song are referring to the Holy Spirit.
- Their music is played on Christian music-exclusive radio stations like [K-Love] (click on the letter 'S') and [Air1].
- The article mentions that they have won Dove awards. If they truly did not want to be associated with Christian Rock in any way, I doubt they would have accepted them.

I don't think anyone is asking that the genre be exclusively Christian Rock, only that it be included as one of the many genres that they fall into. For that reason, I'm adding it to the bottom of the list.

P.S. [This] is Vandalism (petty, childish, and certainly not done in good faith.) [This] is not. 66.177.5.252 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The funniest part of all of this is that the obfuscated image I had to interpret before I could finally save that last edit was 'truthdelay'. God sure has a sense of humor! 66.177.5.252 01:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death. I see no point in repeating either side of the argument yet again. Non-Christian bands are sold in christian book stores. One good example of this would be switchfoot (there are others as well). We have a discussion of this relationship in the article already, but to say that the band's genre is christian rock (even as one of many) is incorrect. --T-rex 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that no-one seems to have any idea what on earth Christian rock entails (and that Switchfoot actually seems to me to meet the description on that page), I'd move to abolish the entire name, and mention further down the page the Foot's (or any band currently thought of as Christian) association with Christianity... alas, "Christian rock" is too widespread a title for us to ignore it completely. :-( --3M163//Complete Geek 09:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There Not Christian rock anymore there Just Christian Members in there band. There like U2, or Likin Park, there are christian memebers in there band there just not christan rock thats all.skateremorocker

But how is "Christian rock" defined? Like I said, the classification should be abolished; I can think of countless examples that would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

They were obviously Christian rock at one point, even if they no longer consider themselves to be. You don't win Dove awards if you aren't Christian rock so it should be listed. You list all the genres a band has played not just what they currently are considered. --E tac (talk) 09:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You people should just stop debating because they are trying to let non Christians get touched by their music because they can't if they are Christian rock so for there sake just stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.155.66 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The band clearly stated that they refused to be categorized as a Cristian Rock Band. Check switchfoot Fleurbutterfly 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lowercase people

Hey Switchfoot fans! Feel free to contribute any information to the band's non-profit organization page: Lowercase people =]

Edit: Unfortunately, Wikipedia wants to delete it so please please please help add information to the article guys. It would be sad to see a good cause put down =[

Oh! Gravity. Single

It says that it peaked at #11 on the Hot 100 charts. If that is true, then why is it that no Top 40 stations have played it and it says nothing about this in the article for the single itself? Sherlock32 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the link for that number and the person that posted #11 was wrong. It reached #11 on the "Bubbling Under" chart.

-Someone keeps changing it to 11. Stop! the chart you used as referance referred to it as a "bubblin under" single. That means it was 11 under the Hot 100! - Joberooni —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joberooni (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then that implies that it never charted at all and should be removed. Number eleven on the bubbling under chart does not equate to number 111 on the hot 100 chart. --T-rex 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Singles

Many of the formats that switchfoot had a hit on are not listed in the article. This link has a list of all the hits and chart peaks: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=SWITCHFOOT&sql=11:09fixq9hldae~T51

For the most part not all minor charts are included in articles to concentrate on the important ones. All singles are listed, but not nessicarally all charts. --T-rex 02:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

discography

Most bands as big as Switchfoot (relient k, P.O.D.) have a discography article. Shouldn't switchfoot?

I'm not sure how a seperate article would be helpful --T-rex 02:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've begun writing one up. It would contain a lot more information about b-sides, Ep's, singles, music videos, etc. that otherwise would be far too obtuse to have on the main article. I think it would make sense.

New album?

It was recently announced, in a newsletter, that Switchfoot was recording a new album due out in '08, is this worth mentioning?

Reference:

We'll have more information for you as things shape up. In the meantime, here are several projects already in the works for the next year:

four jon foreman solo ep's (tentatively titled fall, winter, spring, and summer)

the real sean jon (a collaboration between jon foreman and sean watkins of nickel creek fame)

a new switchfoot record in '08 (the first 13 tracks were cut this week!) --220.237.136.224 06:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning, and it is. The goal is to hold off on an individual article on the album until a track listing can be confirmed... --T-rex 01:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Point, and I had no intention of creating a new article for it, I just thought it would be worth putting "Untitled Switchfoot album - 2008" or the like under discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Masses (talk • contribs) 09:46, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Website Messed Up

The website was reverted back to the version before Oh! Gravity. was released! It doesn't have any of the newer updates at all and shows the concerts they did back in January or something! What's Going on?!? Sherlock32 03:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This website is not messed up. If you mean switchfoot.com you would have to talk to their webmaster, but I don't see any obvious problems there either... --T-rex 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional Information section

This is essentially a trivia section, and a lot of it could be included into the articles for the albums themselves. I've removed it.

Additional information

• Switchfoot performed a one-night concert on September 10, 2007 at the Cuneta Astrodome in Pasay City, Philippines, making it as a homecoming concert for Jerome Fontamillas who is a Filipino-American.
• E. E. Kennedy, a film student at USC, made a documentary on Switchfoot, titled "Everything to Lose", which follows Switchfoot's life on tour and at home.^[1] There are no plans for the film to be released, but was shown at various film festivals around the US in 2003. Some of its footage was later used in the Switchfootage DVD.
• Throughout The Legend of Chin CD booklet, there are pictures of an Asian boy, identified only as "Chin". When Jerome joined the band, many believed him to be Chin, because of his Asian descent. However, Chin is in fact Willis Chin, a good friend of the members of Switchfoot.^[2]
• Jon and Tim were in a Led Zeppelin cover band in Junior High.^[3]
• Jon and Tim Foreman were also in a punk-rock band called "ETC" before forming Switchfoot. However, the band only lasted "one month" after they printed their first CD.^[4]
• Switchfoot endorses Atticus and Macbeth Footwear, fashionwear companies influenced by music and run by musicians.^[5] The band also appeared in a Rolling Stone ad campaign for the Honda Civic Hybrid.^[6]
• Switchfoot tries to make their concerts affordable for fans. They typically charge venues between $35,000 to $40,000 USD per gig. This is very cheap when compared to other bands of the same popularity (who typically charge 4 or 5 times that amount), and allows the venues to sell tickets at lower prices.^[7]
• The songs "Dirty Second Hands" and "Circles" on the Oh! Gravity. album involve five-beat (quintuplet) rhythm passages, which are rare in pop music. "Dirty Second Hands" is primarily in quintuplet meter.

If you can find a good way to include it within the article, go ahead! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 13:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Great and we have done so. Please refreain from removing good referenced information from GA quality articles in the future. Thanks. --T-rex 15:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Alignment with Evangelical Christianity

To all the editors who feel compelled to remove the reference to a concert at Biola, please tell us what information you would like in its place to help establish the band's continued relationship with Evangelical Christianity? It has been added by [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Could we please discuss this? Ἀλήθεια (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's already pretty well summed up in the three paragraphs that are already devoted to the topic. Also if you want to prove that a rock band has a "Alignment with Evangelical Christianity" citing a concert at a college is a pretty poor way of doing so. --T-rex 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

However, leaving the section on "Switchfoot and Christian music" end with a spurious comment about "lyrics critical of organized religion" does not accurately reflect the current status of the band's alignment. Perhaps a reference to their recent Appetite For Construction Tour with other Christian bands would help balance this out. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You must understand that Switchfoot's vision as a band is to not be boxed into "Christian" music or any music for that matter. They want to make music for everyone, and calling them a "Christian Rock" band not only is a disservice to the goal that the band has with their music, but also disrespectful to what they themselves want other people to think. And, like T-rex said, there's already a big fat section detailing the band's affiliation with the CCM market. Adding a small line about Biola is certainly not significant enough a statement to even be included in this article, much less to prove your point. With this premise, I could easily write "the band played a show at the House of Blues in San Diego back in November of 2005. This proves that their goal is to reach the masses of music fans." It just is too small an incident to be included in a general article such as this one. Peace. Joberooni (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the entire sentence the line makes much more sense. That said if everyone wants to just remove the entire line about the sorrow I wouldn't be opposed to it. --T-rex 22:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please restore the edits that were made prior to the three-revert-rule violation, including the following:

To the end of "Oh! Gravity" section, append:

"In 2007, MTV chose the band's Oh! Gravity as the theme song for its hit reality show, Life of Ryan.^[8]"

Rationale: this is a verifiable fact that has been attributed as bolstering the band's success.

To the end of "Switchfoot and Christian music" section, change the period to a comma and append:

"but continued to align with conservative, evangelical groups in concerts such as their January 2008 appearance at Biola University.^[9]"

Rationale: if a single song cover warrants inclusion in this section as contrary evidence, then most certainly an entire concert is admissible (if not indeed the entire tour with Christian-associated acts) as demonstration of the relationship between "Switchfoot and Christian music". If it does not, then remove both statements completely.

Respectfully submitted, Ἀλήθεια (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully counter the request made by Ἀλήθεια regarding the line: "but continued to align with conservative, evangelical groups in concerts such as their January 2008 appearance at Biola University.^[10]".

Rationale: My first reason, is that Ἀλήθεια completely disregarded the points made in the discussion section of this talk page, regarding his/her edits. He/she was the one who initiated the discussion in the first place, with the apparent intent of willingly engaging in constructive, educational debate and discussion. He did not counter or mitigate both T-Rex's, nor my own points regarding his position. Because of this, it can be taken that he concedes the point by completely dropping the argument altogether.

And secondly, again, I'd like to contend, that using one small university concert is not enough of a reason to justify a band's stance... certainly not as significant as three entire existing paragraphs talking about this very subject, which, interestingly enough, contains direct quotes from the band! Again, I would use the following example to point out the absurdity of using one event as an example: "Switchfoot is playing Rock-Fest in Wisconsin this summer along with a lineup that includes some of today's biggest alternative/modern rock mainstream bands, which aligns with the fact that Switchfoot is trying to be a band for everyone, not just the conservative Christian demographic. [6]" It's just not significant enough of a statement. The fact that Jon Foreman covered the song "Sorrow" by Bad Religion is far more significant, because it caused such a stir amongst the punk rock community, and makes much more sense in proving the band's true stance: they want to make music for everyone, and they don't listen only to CCM. They listen to "secular" bands as well.

That said, I am also open to having that line removed, since it is so “controversial.”

Peace, Joberooni (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least engaging in the dialogue about this. (I guess there's little other alternative when the senseless reverting got the article locked down, right?) I think you are missing the point if you believe mention of "one small university concert" is attempting to sway a reader away from the understanding that they are "trying to be a band for everyone". It is merely demonstrative of the fact that despite wanting to "make music for everyone" they are still playing to Christian audiences and touring with Christian bands. It's almost as if editors of this article want to discourage people from coming away with the conclusion that Switchfoot continues to have any relationship to Christianity, which would be a distortion of the facts. Playing one song doesn't prove anything more about the band's true stance than playing one concert does. If anything, it proves less. But the point isn't about proving anything. It's simply about stating facts. Both statements are verifiable facts and both add encyclopedic information around the context of the band's relationship to Christianity. To suppress one of the statements introduces unnecessary POV to the article. Either remove both or include both. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool! I say we remove both. Because there are already three paragraphs of info. Both sentences/statements are rather irrelevant, compared to what has already been written. But lets respect the band's stance by not labeling them "Christian Rock" in the artist infobox's genres. I say we have come to an agreement, yes? Joberooni (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You want an admin to come in and add the very part that resulted in the article getting locked in the first place? Never going to happen. Furthermore any statement such as "[the band] is align[ed] with conservative, evangelical groups is just false. Yes they have some christian tendencies but they are not a part of any groups. Also they have no closer relationship to conservatives nor evangelicals then any other sub group of christianity. --T-rex 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Their whole point is not to be associated in any demographical niche boxes. Let's leave it at that. Joberooni (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Complete agreement from me regarding removal of the reference to the Bad Religion cover song, and leaving the reference to the concert out, but I think the reference to the MTV theme song is pretty well-documented and probably deserves inclusion. HokieRNB (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, that MTV reference has already been mentioned on the actual song's article. May seem a little repetitive, but I have no objections to its inclusion. Joberooni (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification... "the very part that resulted in the article getting locked in the first place" was User:T-rex's multiple unexplained, undiscussed, and unwarranted reversions which removed verifiable and sourced information from the article. That aside, I would be satisfied to remove the statement about the song rather than add the statement about the concert. Ἀλήθεια (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not argue about that. We have pretty much all agreed to removing the line about the song, and forgetting the whole Biola thing. Joberooni (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes thats right. I was edit waring with myself. Nobody else was trying to muddy up the article with nonsense at all. You never ever reverted the article a single time. As for the life of ryan thing, I think it's a little too specific to include on this article. I'm all for mentioning it on the individual song article (and possibly the album article) though --T-rex 23:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? Restoring verifiable and sourced information that had been removed without any discussion is not "edit warring". You removed the same information on at least EIGHT occasions ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and possibly [15] and [16]). From what I can tell, no other single editor reverted anything more than twice, and if they did it a second time, they used edit summaries that explained their actions and/or discussed it on the talk page. You, on the other hand, either failed to use an edit summary at all (allowing it to automatically assign one) or said "rv v". While you may believe that others were "trying to muddy up the article with nonsense", they at least had the civility to say what they were doing using appropriate edit summaries or the talk page. Please go back and refresh yourself on what it means to WP:assume good faith. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I never used edit summaries, because summaries like this one and this one and this one clearly do not count. After a while you can see why I would be tired of repeating myself. I simplified it to rv v because reverting vandalism is what it got to be after a while. The first time I can take as an honest mistake, but after so many times I have to call it for what it is. Perhaps I should have used informative edit summaries like this instead. Also your math is off. If I edited the article back 8 times, and Joberooni did twice, then that leaves at 10 instances of reverting divided among the three of you. But no need to concern yourself with such details. Now even HokieRNB and Ἀλήθεια have agreed with me which is welcome (if unexpected). --T-rex 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christian music importance

I noticed that this article is rated low-importance on the importance scale for the Christian music WikiProject. I think this ought to be raised to at least Mid, possibly more like High-importance. Don't get me wrong, I full and well understand that they currently don't consider themselves a Christian band. But I think their previous influence and hit singles in Christian music would warrant a higher importance rating than just Low. The fact that they're no longer a Christian band doesn't mean that they still don't have an influence on Christian music, or else the Christianmusic project banner probably wouldn't be on this page. Let me know what you all think the CCM importance should be, as well as the idea in general of changing it. Thanks for the feedback, JamieS93 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Over on the Christian music WikiProject would be a more appropriate place to ask about this. However, from a quick look it appears as if all articles on bands are rated at low importance. That said it can't hurt to go over and ask. --T-rex 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi T-Rex, I had even thought to ask there first, and you're probably right that it's the best place to go. Also, I realized that I could couple the proposition with other such articles like Relient K, Audio Adrenaline and dc Talk, that have an undue low-importance rating. Thanks, JamieS93 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Does anyone know if these guys are anti-evolution? I would be sad if they were, but I saw one of their roadies earing an anti-evolution shirt. Electricbassguy (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that they have published any papers either way on the topic. --T-rex 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They're Christians. Most Christains don't believe in evolution, you know.-- Barkjon  02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The smart ones do. The dumb ones say stupid things like: I didn't evolve from a monkey which shows a lack of understanding of evolution. Electricbassguy (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks... Saksjn (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)