Jump to content

Talk:ApologetiX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parody

[edit]

"Smooth Grandmama is considered to be their most well-known parody." Been there for a while without citation. Probably not verifiable, so has been moved here for discussion or discard. "While maintaining the integrity of fundamentalist "grannies," the song pokes fun at its certain aspects." Cute, but unnecessary and has a faint whiff of NPOV. EasilyAmused 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologetics

[edit]

The bit about apologetics meaning "defense of the Christian faith" should be changed.

Why? Sign your posts, please. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologitics DOES mean defence of the Christian faith. Askbros 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the original poster, but isn't it defence of ANY position? That's certainly what wikipedia claims A Geek Tragedy 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be, but in this case we're using the early definition of being related to the defence of the Christian faith. Askbros 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ApologetixLogo.png

[edit]

Image:ApologetixLogo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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. 'DefenSe is spelled with an "S" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.76.103.97 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I'm not a lawyer and am totally unknowledgeable, but all their logo is is a trinity symbol. Surely since the church has been using for such a long time, Apologetix can't have copyrighted it. And, I can't find the little c in a a circle next to it anywhere on they're website. Hope this maybe helps a bit.Sir Akroy 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Triquetra.jpg

[edit]

Image:Triquetra.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 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 04:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Messner

[edit]

Per WP:BAND:

Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.

Nothing on Karl's article (which was written by himself) indicates much notability outside of his stint on ApologetiX.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is much anticipation regarding Karl's solo project. Fans have been looking for this ever since the day Karl left ApologetiX. Karl was not just the guitar player. He was the co-founder and producer as well as the driving force for the band. If Karl's article is merged with ApologeitX, as soon as his solo project takes off, it will have to be split off again. --Bookmark notation (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookmark notation (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything from someone who's not a single-purpose account?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cyber, I agree with your point about him editing his own page 100%. I have been systematically going through this page all week adding references and removing biases. He is a musician that was part of a notable band that is now going to be making his own music though, and according to the notability guidelines that qualifies him as a notable musician who should have his own page. --User:MrUnincredible (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much info is available about this forthcoming album?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the announcement: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=445181178&blogId=477778720 Mrunincredible (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you pull a WP:RS? I havn't read the latest HM, maybe there's one there? Dan, the CowMan (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look guys, I know that next to the mainstream artists ApologetiX doesn't amount to a hill of beans. But for an independent Christian band they have made quite a name for themselves. They are the only band that does what they do, and they have received a great deal of recognition for it. The fact remains Karl was the lead guitarist and producer for a notable band and he is now branching out into his own territory, and that is enough to qualify him for his own page according to Wikipedia's own guidelines.--Mrunincredible (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying they're not notable. And believe me when I say that I understand CCM; I write articles on relatively obscure CCM bands all the time. Im just pointing out that the guidelines read this way: it's sources sources establish notability. That's criteria #1. All other criteria lead back to it. And HM regularly covers the ApologetiX, which is why I suggest you look there. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the debate here is only whether ApologetiX is a notable band or not. The guidelines don't specify what burden of proof is required for a departed member to show that they are making their own album, an official announcement from the departed member should be sufficient for that. If ApologetiX is a notable, and he is working on a solo project, then he qualifies.--Mrunincredible (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) So I've re-read the thread and thought about it a bit; digested it. I don't think that's exactly what going on - nobody is questioning the notability of the ApologetiX, just of Karl (Yes, I saw the AFD). Karl's wp:notability factor may change with time. Let me try an example for you. Dale Thompson likely fits the notability standards because he is the subject of multiple+independant+reliable sources. That means not myspace, last.fm, twitter, classmates.com, or anything written by either him or the ApX (nothing self-published). (Find that for Karl and it's basically in the bag.) But Thompson wasn't notable just because he was in Bride, it took more than just his being to meet the standards that WP has built. And it's a strange place here sometimes -- Thompson, for example, has released at least five solo albums with a blues or country sound, and those aren't even mentioned in his article.

And yes, the guidelines do specify "burden of proof." It's exactly the same for each and every article on Wikipedia (multiple+independant+reliable sources). Guidelines such as WP:Music are just that - guides. They are meant to draw you to sourcing. WP:Music essentially says "show me sources that show these things." The way the situation looks right now, the norms call for a redirect to a section of the ApX article. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article on ApologetiX is accurate, the article on Karl Messner is misleading. For instance, it states "The pair (i.e. Jackson and Messner) began to compose parodies of popular songs while attending a Bible study together to help them memorize scripture verses." This gives the impression that Messner was one of the lyricists for ApologetiX. The liner notes on all 15 ApologetiX CDs clearly state "All Parody Lyrics by J. John Jackson." There is only one exception -- a song on their "Chosen Ones" CD that is credited to both J. John Jackson and Keith Haynie. To merge the article on ApologetiX with the one on Karl Messner would create a hybrid article -- one that is well-researched and documented combined with one that is not. Also, the ApologetiX article was not started by the band itself whereas Messner started his page himself. The former article appears to be for informative purposes whereas the latter appears to be for promotional purposes. Parodude (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secular vs. Mainstream

[edit]

I am starting to think that using the word "Secular Songs" to describe Non-Christian Songs/Music is not Politically Correct especially since a lot of time people in bands not considered Christian are devout Christians and just don't explicitly mention God in their lyrics. I think that the word "Mainstream Songs" would be more appropriate anyone else agree????????

Also "Smooth Grandmama" is based off of the "Alien Ant Farm" Cover Version of "Smooth Criminal" and not the "Michael Jackson" version so I corrected that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the music that is called "secular" and not the people, I don't see any issue. Some artists have both Christian and secular music, often on different albums. Carlaude:Talk 05:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability guidelines for musicians/ensembles

[edit]
media
  • ApologetiX was mentioned in a USA Today article that appeared in the Life section of the January 26, 2005 edition in an article by Olivia Barker titled "Fountains of Wayne has one splashy mama." SEE http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2005-01-26-fountains-of-wayne_x.htm
  • ApologetiX has made four appearances in Focus on the Family's "Plugged In" Magazine. First there was a cover story in April 2001, "Something Good is Springing Out of Rock's Rubble: ApologetiX Sets the Records Straight." Then there were follow-up reviews in December 2002, April 2004, and February 2007.
  • ApologetiX was the subject of a feature story in the Los Angeles Times on August 17, 2002. The article was written by Times staff writer William Lobdell and appeared in the Religion Section. It was titled "Zeppelin and Eminem Parodies? Word!" and was quite lengthy.
  • A paragraph of review of Keep the Change was featured in his article in the February 2002 issue of DJ Times Magazine.
  • The same author also placed a review of their latest CD in that February 2002 issue of Noize Magazine atwww.thenoize.faithweb.com.
  • "New & Used Hits" was reviewed by Christianity Today's online publication Christianitytoday.com in January 2005. SEE http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2005/newandusedhits.html
  • ApologetiX was the subject of an article by the Agape Christian News Service on December 30, 2004. SEE http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/302004b.asp
  • ApologetiX has been featured a number of times in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review over the years. The Tribune-Review featured a sprawling half-page article on ApologetiX in its February 25, 2005 issue, and is available to read online at: http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/s_307319.html
  • ApologetiX has been featured twice in "Campus Life" magazine, published bi-monthly by Christianity Today International. "It's Just Mock 'n' Roll!" an article in the May/June 2000 issue and "Spoofernatural!" an article in the May/June 2001 issue.
  • HM Magazine, the national Christian hard rock magazine, has featured ApologetiX many times, including a full-length interview with lead singer/lyricist J. Jackson, in its May/June 2004 issue. Although that interview was edited due to space constraints, HM has posted a longer version on its website at: http://www.hmmagazine.com/exclusive/earchive.php
  • Christian Musician Magazine reviewed the ApologetiX CD "Adam Up" in their Mar/Apr 2004 issue.
  • ApologetiX was the subject of a feature article in the February 2005 issue of the AFA Journal, a monthly publication of the American Family Association, titled "Group Parodies Lyrics to Reach Lost, Inspire Believers." SEE http://www.crosswalk.com/fun/music/1314230.html
national awards

ApologetiX won the Best CD Award in Christianity Today's 2005 Reader's Choice Awards for "New & Used Hits," and placed second (after Skillet) in the Best Band category.

  • ApologetiX also won the 2004 Favorite Indie Artist award in the CCM Magazine Reader's Choice Awards, published in the February 2005 issue of CCM Magazine. CCM has been around for over 25 years and is regarded as the premier publication covering contemporary Christian music.
  • ApologetiX has won the following three American Christian Music Awards:
  • 2002 Recorded Fringe Song of the Year: "The Real Sin Savior"
  • 2004 Alternative Song of the Year: "Lifestyles of the Rich & Nameless"
  • 2004 Alternative Artist Of The Year


These are all great examples of items which demonstrate the notability of the band. However they need to be in the article as references, not just here on the talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ApologetiX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ApologetiX&oldid=1256867967"