Jump to content

Talk:List of Christian punk bands/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Multiple non-punk bands

Many of these bands aren't punk (Olivia the Band? TFK? Flyleaf?) I don't have time now, but later I'm going to make a list of changes, and anyone objecting needs to let me know, cause we need to remove them or this page will be a joke. Saksjn (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OC Supertones

Should we add them. There not strictly punk persay, but they do have a lot of punk elements in there music. Saksjn (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(Like I said above I'm not sure about ska-punk bands but...) I've always considered them to be a ska band, not a punk band (unfortunately Christian ska and the supplementary article List of Christian ska bands [both of which I created btw] were deleted while I was on wikibreak; I didn't even get notified). However, I don't really like the 'Tones and haven't really listened to them. Bottom line, I would remove 'em but I'd rather leave it in the hands of someone who actually knows about the band. →EdGl 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why were those articles deleted? Just because the genre isn't very active right now doesn't mean that it never was relevant. Wikipedia annoys me sometimes the way they delete things just because one or two of their higher ups thinks its irrelevant.
Their article lists them as Ska-punk, and if you take the horns out of thier music your basically left with punk. Saksjn (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess bands that are "punk with horns" can be on the list, much like Flatfoot 56 ("punk with bagpipes") is on the list. →EdGl 01:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
All right, I'll add them. Unless you already have that is. Saksjn (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing non-punk bands

I removed several bands that aren't actually punk. There were some bands listed that I never heard of so I don't know if they are punk or not so I left them alone. I don't know if hardcore punk bands such as Figure Four belong here either but I left them and added a few more since some were listed already.Mentalhead (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyday Sunday

I went ahead and added them. They're not strict punk, but they are definitely pop-punk/power-pop. Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

They are not even pop-punk and should be removed. Mentalhead (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Check their article. Saksjn (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I don't understand; there isn't much in their article. I've heard all of their most popular songs and none of them are pop-punk. They are pop-rock. Mentalhead (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reffering to the info that lists them as punk. Saksjn (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see. But that doesn't really mean anything. I personally don't think the "punk" link should be there. I wouldn't include them in this article either if it was only up to me. Mentalhead (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert back?

I don't know how to revert back to the latest edit before 134.129.59.158 changed everything, but I think it would be a good idea to do so. It looks way too confusing now and I don't think most people care if something is classified as "oi punk" or "street punk". Some of the bands are labeled incorrectly anyway, i.e. Flatfoot 56 is actually Celtic punk. Mentalhead (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Is Flatfoot the only celtic punk band we have on here? If they aren't, we should abbreviate them CP. Saksjn (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They are the only one that I know of. Mentalhead (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a compromise. We label working-class oriented music as "(s)", this covers Oi!, Streetpunk, Celtic Punk, all working-class music. Since it differs greatly with the views of most punk bands, I think it would only be appropriate to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.59.158 (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Would that include ska-punk also? nuttyskadork (talk)

What about Christian anarcho (The psalters) or post-punk bands? If "H" means hardcore and "P" means pop punk, shouldn't it be logical we should have a key like this:

Letter Subgenre header 3
a Christian Anarcho-punk row 1, cell 3
Post post-punk row 2, cell 3
s street punk

Chris Henniker (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If there were enough bands I think it would make sense, but there aren't many Christian punk bands as it is. And the average user probably doesn't even know what those sub-genres mean. Just my opinion. Mentalhead (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See comment on Talk:Christian rock

I put a comment on that talk page, please respond to it. Saksjn (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

bunch of new bands

Somebody just added a bunch of new bands, can somebody review them? Saksjn (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Dingees, Discarded, Lugnut, and One Bad Pig I've at least heard of (and I have Lugnut's only album which is really fast, really good, Christian punk), but the others I haven't. I'll Google the others shortly. ~EdGl (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm better with post-1998 bands. Saksjn (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed a couple bands I couldn't find anything for and kept the bands with myspaces and with other sites mentioning them. "The Fraidy Cats" and "Spudgun" have one (the same) website mentioning them, but that's it, so I removed those two. ~EdGl (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed Classic Crime and the OC Supertones. Mentalhead (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. What would you guys consider Classic Crime to be anyways? Alternative? Saksjn (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

heh, I don't even know. I just know they're not punk. Mentalhead (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

MxPx and Slick Shoes as Pop-Punk

MxPx, in my opinion, is a dual genre band. Much of the stuff in the middle of their career was pop punk, thanks to capitol records of course, but the stuff at the beginning and much of their newer stuff is punk. How do we choose which part of their career to label them with? Slick Shoes is a band that stands right on the border between pop punk and punk... they're both and not both. Labeling them as either seems to be incorrect. I know this would be impossible because of policies but it seems that we need to label bands on a 1-10 scale, 5 being punk, 10 being hardcore punk, and 1 being pop-punk. MxPx and Slick Shoes would probably be in the 3-4 range. Saksjn (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but a number scale is a bad idea for a couple of reasons: it is extreme overkill and very difficult to implement. I don't think we should split up this into List of Christian pop punk bands and List of Christian hardcore punk bands, but maybe we could split the article into columns, one for pop punk, one for punk, and maybe one for hardcore punk (with bands belonging to more than one section simply being duplicated for each list). What do you think? ~EdGl (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am aware that that would not be possible, it was merely an example of how certain bands can't be placed in either of the two because they are so borderline. Any suggestions on how to deal with that.Saksjn (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

adding to project punk

Since this is a list of bands in a genere covered by project punk I added the tag. I hope you don't mind. --Guerillero (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned-up the list

Thanks to an editor who has added a disambiguation page to the List of Christian metal bands twice, I followed their edits back to this list, which I forgot was here. I made the list two-column. Then I went through and looked at the entries. I removed entries that were not linked to bands. I updated one entry. I also removed one entry that pointed to a band that had no indication that they were a Christian band and another two entries because they were not punk (Hillsong United and one other). I have also added this article to my watch list and try to help keep it clean. By clean, I mean that I will attempt to remove entries as I did above. I'm not doing this simply based on my preference of bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Family Force 5?

(i love ff5! dont dis them man! and i think its funny how anyone can edit wikipedia...hahaha there can be bull info here!! haha)You got to be kidding, Family Force Five is not a punk band. If anyone objects, replace them and explain why,but Im removing them unitl then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saksjn (talk • contribs) 14:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The vocals, the energy, and in case you didn't look it up, crunk rock, their official genre, is a subgenre of punk rock. It's a fusion genre, but it's punk nonetheless. They stay for now. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Crunkcore probably counts as punk, but here are two sources for them playing simply "punk": [1] [2]--3family6 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How can crossrhythms even suggest that they're just punk? They're a British publication. The origin of punk. I am dismayed yet again at their reviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither article says they are just punk, I probably used poor wording. What I meant was that the actual term "punk" was used, not just "crunk rock" or "rapcore".--3family6 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What are our standards for punk?

We need to set a standard for what bands we include as Punk Rock bands, and those don't. Here are my suggestions: blatantly punk groups, punk-pop groups, ska-punk groups, power pop groups, and hardcore punk groups. I also recommend that we don't list: ska groups, groups that have only one punkish song, and most emo groups. Please comment on what you think the standards should be. Saksjn (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should limit the list to just (real) punk and pop-punk bands. I know of bands that are pure ska and shouldn't be on this list (like FIF), but I'm not sure I know of any Christian ska-punk bands. Could you give examples? Only then could I make a decision on that. As for the hardcore punk issue, I'd keep them on the list if they're "mostly punk", such as xLooking Forwardx, while removing strictly hardcore bands such as War of Ages. Stretch Arm Strong would be borderline I guess. →EdGl 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
War of Ages are metalcore. Maybe some true pop-punk bands such as MXPX should be listed but not bands such as Hawk Nelson who barely have any punk influence.Mentalhead (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Any band that is sourced as playing any punk or punk fusion style should be listed here. This list may need to be split up into more specific lists (i.e. hardcore, metalcore, pop punk, etc.--3family6 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Should we broaden our criteria for inclusion?

User:Mentalhead deleted quite a few bands that tend to be more poppy and less punk, while adding bands that tend to be more hardcore/metal. I think it would be a fair compromise to include both the Hawk Nelsons and xLooking Forwardxs of Christian music in this list. Perhaps we can denote (with a * or something) which bands are "poppier" and which are "harder"? I don't know... that could get messy. ~EdGl 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If we include pop-punk then we should include hardcore, which is actually "hardcore-punk" after all. XLooking Forwardx is definitely hardcore, the same as No Innocent Victim. Maybe we need more categories like pop-punk and hardcore and keep the true punk bands here. Or else put (pop-punk) and (hardcore punk) after some of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentalhead (talk • contribs) 21:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, but it doesn't eliminate the problem of defining what is "punk" and what is "pop-punk" ("punk" and "hardcore" is much easier to differentiate). I'm sure we can get most of them right, but I'm sure there will be some bands that could be considred "punk" and "pop-punk". It seems as good of an idea as any, so I say we go with it. You can add back NIV, but you will also need to add other Christian hardcore bands. Can you do that? ~EdGl 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it hard to differentiate between punk and pop-punk... But some bands such as Our Corpse Destroyed could probably be defined as both punk and hardcore. I added several more bands and put (HxC) and (PP) after some of them. If anyone can come up with a better way of labeling them or wants to organize them that'd be cool. Also I never heard of some of the bands listed so I don't know if they're all labeled correctly.Mentalhead (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be difficult to differentiate punk and pop-punk. For example, MxPx is currently labeled as pop-punk, which is true for half of their music. The other half is straight punk. (For example, Contention.) If we start labeling what kind of punk a band is, were in store for quite a few arguments. Saksjn (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

MxPx is purely pop-punk now (I don't know what their early albums are like), so I think it would be fitting for them to fall under that category. Mentalhead (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MxPx has been my favorite band since I started liking music in 2002, I have all their albums, etc. Saksjn is correct in that they have a few punk songs. But looking at their discography as a whole, the genre that most fits them is pop-punk. Their first and maybe second albums were almost pure punk, and let it happen has many punk songs, but their other 10 or so albums/eps/comps etc. are nearly pure pop-punk. ~EdGl (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Emery

Someone added Emery, and I removed them. Does anyone object? Saksjn (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't believe they are a Christian band anyways. nuttyskadork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.110.250 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They are Christian (see their article) and also belonging to a subgenre of punk. They stay on the list for now. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

More Non-punk bands?

I removed metalcore bands including Haste The Day and As I Lay Dying. I don't see how we can include another, barely related genre, unless we include every Christian music genre (rock, pop, country), and that would lose the point of this page being called "List of Christian Punk Bands".Mentalhead (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You were right in reverting. ~EdGl (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Metalcore is a hardcore punk and metal fusion genre. Metalcore bands should stay or maybe have a sub-list.--3family6 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of punk

I'm adding a section where we can debate and hopefully reach a consensus on whether certain genres belong in punk. Feel free to add another sub-genre to the debate. Saksjn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop-Punk

If we have reliable sources calling them punk-pop, we should go with it. Saksjn (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes that will work, but what counts as a reliable source? Some bands even say they are punk when they aren't. If we know what punk actually is then I think that would be a better way to judge bands. Remember that nowadays nearly anything is called punk, when actually it is not. Mentalhead (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I'm so young and didn't experience the glory days of punk (wish I did), but I've always heard bands such as Stellar Kart reffered to as punk or pop-punk. Modern Punk is Pop-Punk, unfortunately there aren't many real punk bands left, but the genre still lives. Saksjn (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not old either, but I don't like how they call pop-punk and pop-rock bands punk nowadays. It still doesn't make them punk. Our Corpse Destroyed, Hanover Saints and The Havoc (recently disbanded) are some examples of modern bands that are/were still pure punk. Mentalhead (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Powerpop

Should we go with sources, or try to make up are own minds? Saksjn (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm for making up our own minds unless you know of some sources that are actually very reliable.Mentalhead (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies require us to go with sources. A reliable source in this case would be an album review, professional profile, etc. It would NOT be a fan site, myspace, official website, iTunes review, etc.
But for something like this there isn't usually an actual "reliable" source, where do you expect to find one that you know is accurate? Mentalhead (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, a professional review site or something like it. Saksjn (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ska-Punk

Celtic/Irish Punk

Hardcore Punk

Emo

Comment

All the above styles are punk sub-genres except for powerpop. All except powerpop should be included.--3family6 (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the list

As you may have noticed, I have just done a fairly major revision of this page. These consist of changes to the structure that more accurately reflect what kind of punk each band plays, as well as removing some artists from the list and adding others. If you disagree with any of these changes, particularly in the specific labeling and/or inclusion/removal of a certain band, please respond below (non-hysterical, with proper grammar, and more specific than just "Listen to them, they're not punk!") BEFORE going ahead and editing the page, and if I agree with you, I will happily give you the go-ahead to make the necessary changes. Let's try and do this in a civil manner. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the page back to my original edits. Please don't undo them again without posting your concerns here. The last thing we need is an edit war.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. Add new comments at the bottom of the list, not the top.
  2. I don't know why you reorganized and add disputed bands, most hardcore bands. Will remove without discussion, but will leave comments.
--Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
First concern: Linking the genre every time is against WP:OVERLINK.
Second concern: List of Christian metal bands has been referencing bands. The fact that many of the bands here are unreferenced, means that anyone could remove them for that reason.
Third concern, which I've already mentioned above: hardcore are in the List of Christian metal bands and should not also be included here.
I'm about to start working on the list and will comment as I make changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Done my edits. Band must be obviously Christian not just nice guys or have Christian themes. Removed bands that were more metal than punk. Definitely removed over-links and added small tags to the genres so they don't over-power the band names, which was the reason that the abbreviations were there originally. May do one more pass to add some of the band that were removed by Invisiboy42293. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the overlink and adding my comments to the top. I'm kind of new at this.

With the exceptions of Memphis May Fire and Sleeping With Sirens, both of which have Christian members (Sources 1, 2, and SWS' lead singer is a Christian), all of the bands I added were cross-referenced with the artist list over at Jesusfreakhideout.com, since they seem to be the most thorough in checking out bands' Christianity. Unfortunately, they occasionally mess up with genres (they have Living Sacrifice listed as "Hardcore") and I was lazy and neglected to check out the ones I hadn't heard of. For that I apologize.

How about this: I'll revert the page back to my last edit, put in your formatting and lead paragraph, cut out the bands that are obviously not punk, and then we can go down the list and try to come to agreement on some of the less obvious bands/artists. Would that be okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiboy42293 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Metal is not punk. Check the list of Christian metal bands‎ and if they appear there, don't add them here, unless they had a clear punk period. The same goes for the list of Christian ska bands‎, unless we abandon that list because it's short and will not be added-to.
Part of the problem is that you also added bands that were in no way punk or even related to the genre such as All Star United, Capital Lights, Dakoda Motor Co., etc..
I may be convinced to include rapcore bands, but to me it's rap meets metal, not hardcore punk, since the first Christian rapcore band was a rapper who talked some Christian metal musicians to be his background band. However, it makes more sense to add them to the list of Christian hip hop and rap artists.
You have to respect the existing the lists and not add bands to multiple lists unless they clearly changed genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, some bands have multiple genres that apply to them i.e. Relient K is punk, pop, and rock, and belongs on all three lists. Many younger bands that are technically "metalcore", such as Oh, Sleeper and The Devil Wears Prada, are nonetheless included on many punk specialty sites like absolutepunk and plyrics, as they are much closer to punk than, say, As I Lay Dying or Living Sacrifice. Underoath, despite being constantly described as "metalcore" contains little to no breakdowns (a defining characteristic of the genre, according to Wikipedia's own page on the genre) and have had very little to do with metal since their first two albums. You need to look at each band on an individual basis.

Also, while ska itself may not be related to punk, Christian ska is directly connected to ska punk, and many bands that were already on the list before I started editing (The Dingees, Squad Five-O, etc.) are also on that list.

Moreover, many of the bands that you deleted (Chasing Victory, As Cities Burn, Inhale Exhale, etc.) were in fact punk and are included on the two sites that I mentioned above. I admit that some of them are clearly not and I will remove them, but as I said above, I would prefer a more specific argument than just "They're not punk" before you go ahead and remove them.

Here's what I'll do: I'll go with my suggestion above, and you can make a list of here of all the remaining bands you feel are not punk and why, and we can debate each artist individually. I think that this is the most efficient way to reach a compromise that will benefit the article. I hope we can work this out without resorting to an edit war. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you revert my changes, I'll revert back to my last one. Are your sources reliable? You still have not addressed the issue, and this is the primary issue, that if they're listed on one list page (metal, ska, rap) that they should not be listed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you didn't notice it, but I did state above why some bands belong on more than one list - some artists play music that falls into many different genres, and thus need to be categorized as such. I also explained why Christian ska is a subgenre of punk while regular ska is not.
I personally don't like Wikipedia's policy that a band's genre must be sourced. You could find all kinds of sources for Underoath being "metalcore", even though, as I stated above, this foes not fit them at all. However, since it is a policy, my sources are primarily Jesusfreakhideout.com, to determine an artist's Christianity, Plyrics.com, which specifically deals with artists who play punk or one of its subgenres, and wikipedia itself. I consider these sources reliable because they all allow for user feedback and discussion of individual artists. If you would like me to provide sources from any of these sites, I will be happy to do so.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't notice. Band do not belong on more than one list since the list are for the most part mutually exclusive and they're linked to each other at the bottom of the article.
I don't think that we need references for the bands. Only the list of Christian metal bands has references, the other four don't. However I don't know if Plyrics.com is a WP:RS or not.
And you still haven't addressed bands that aren't even punk at all: All Star United, Capital Lights, Dakoda Motor Co., etc..
These are reasons why I don't want you to revert to your last edit. Feel free to add back bands that you think should be included, but if they don't fit the criteria, someone will delete them. I'm not the only editor who watches this list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
And the main reason that we need a neutral third-party reference to state that a band is a specific genre is to avoid this sort of debate: one where you think a band does meet the genre and I (or someone else does).
It won't solve the other half of the dispute: the half that is around whether a band belongs on this list and another, related list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. As I said above, some bands are more than one genre. Plus, before I started editing, there were several bands on the list that are also on the Ska list, and nobody seems to have complained about it then.
  2. No problem, I'll be happy to provide references if it's necessary.
  3. I am currently going through the comments you made about your revisions (I just noticed them; like I said, I'm new here) and will be posting here about any revisions I make. Feel free to change them back, should you see fit.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rapcore is any kind of punk, not just hardcore, that contains vocal and/or instrumental elements of hip-hop. P.O.D.'s own page lists them as rap metal and not rapcore, so I'll give you that. Manafest, however, does have rapcore in the genre box on his page. If somebody changes that, fine, but until then I think he deserves to stay here. Simultaneous listing issues can be handled over on the Christian rap discussion page.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm removing Armia, since I can't find any evidence that they are actively Christian.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm re-adding I Am Empire. They will likely have an article soon anyway, as they have two albums, a music video, and seem to be getting the most buildup out of the newer T&N signees. For now, I am linking to the "artist list" section of Tooth & Nail's page so it can be seen that they exist.

Also removed I Am Terrified, as their own article lists them as Christian metal. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding Family Force 5. Their own page lists them as crunk rock, which is punk rock mixed with crunk. The fact that they have some danceable tunes doesn't change that.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed them all.
  • Rapcore is rap and belong in that list.
  • Could be persuaded to remove Armia since the only proof they are a Christian band is that their article carries the category.
  • No article for I Am Empire so removing. WP:WTAF.
  • Will remove I Am Empire shortly.
  • Family Force 5 are Family Force 5 uses elements of alternative rock and crunk-rock. Since there are more refs to alternative rock, they're not completely crunk. Omit.
Thanks for discussing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Rapcore is both rap and punk, so artists in that genre belong on both lists.
  • I have not found any sources outside of wikipedia that classify them as either Christian or punk. I say we take them off.
  • I suppose you have a point on I Am Empire. We can leave them off until an article gets written.
  • Crunk rock is just punk rock with crunk influences, as I stated above.
  • The Devil Wears Prada has been included in almost every punk listing I've ever seen, and were even included on Punk Goes Crunk. They are technically metalcore, but they are much closer to hardcore than metal.

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Also removed Everyday Sunday, as the discussion above ended with the consensus that they were not punk. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):: While Rapcore is both rap and metal (as defined by our definition for keeping the lists separate: Metalcore is metal, Hardcore is metal). Its artists are only to be in one list. Pick one.

The Devil Wears Prada is in the metal list. Take up the discussion there. People have been insisting on adding them there twice (they're under the Ds and they are being added to the Ts) and you're the only one who wants them added here. They're in the metal list because they're hardcore. Not on this list. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How does rapcore have anything to do with metal? It's a combination of rap and hardcore. In music terms, "Hardcore" refers specifically to Hardcore punk, a heavier version of your standard punk rock. Neither of these has much of anything to do with metal. I'll go join the discussion over there.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore was metal before it got punked-up a bit. That's how. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Then why on the page for Hardcore punk does it list only Punk rock as a "stylistic origin", and not any form om metal?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Dunno. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
How come Rapcore isn't listed as a derivative or Subgenres of Hardcore punk? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Because, despite the name, rapcore can include elements of any genre of punk rock, and is thus more of a subgenre (actually a fusion genre) of Punk rock rather than of hardcore. In fact, that's where it's listed. So unless you can prove to me that metal produced hardcore, I'm going to start considering hardcore bands punk, and I kindly ask that you do not undo any edits I may make to that end without posting your reasoning here first. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Did I mention that the first Christian Rapcore band was XL & DBD? Metal, not any punk at all. So unless you can the guys on the metal list that the rapcore bands should be here, they should stay there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. If this band exists, they apparently were not significant enough to have their own article here, much less be mentioned on wikipedia except as a passing reference on Mark Salomon's page, and even that doesn't identify them as rapcore.
  2. The only evidence you provide for them being "metal" is that you state that they are. This leads me to believe that you are basing this on what you here in their music, which would fall under the category of original research. Furthermore, even if they actually were metal, that would make them rap metal, not rapcore, and thus would make the label inaccurate, not change the definition of the genre.
  3. Even if this is a real band and they were the first, so what? Is all rock music considered country just because Elvis Presley played some country and western?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You appear to be basing these decisions on your own personal prejudices, and you don't seem to be very knowledgeable about the genres involved. What's more, even though you stated in an earlier section that your edits were not "based on your personal preferences of the bands", many of your comments in the revision history give no rationale for allowing a band to stay other than that you "love" them. You also seem to have deemed certain bands "not Christian", even though they clearly are. In fact, with notable exceptions, you haven't convinced me that you were justified in removing many of my original inclusions or re-adding the ones I removed. For this reason, I will start adding many of my original inclusions back, and I kindly ask that you do not undo them without first posting your reasoning on this talk page. I also intend to delete this section of the talk page at some point, since it's done nothing but take up valuable space and document an edit war.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You too appear to be basing these decisions on your own personal preferences. I have no prejudices. Check-out the responses on the metal list page. I will agree to consensus, not just your preference. So far consensus is to leave the hardcore bands on the metal list, but if you point-out that the metal list is a bit long and this one is short, you may get a bit of cred on that list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
We don't need to get into some childish argument about who's "prejudiced". Hardcore was already discussed in an early section on this very talk page, and it was agreed to include them as long as they are not too much metal (i.e. As I Lay Dying and Living Sacrifice. If you want to call every remotely heavy band metal, that's your business, but it's not a valid reason to remove bands from this page. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
First, I didn't use the term prejudice, you did. Second, my only reason for not including a band is that it's on the metal page. Not that it's metal, but it does border on metal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore is a heavy form of punk, though bands like Discharge, Suicidal Tendencies, and The Crucified crossed over into thrash as well. All sourced hardcore bands should be on this list, only those that also play metal and/or metalcore should also be on the other list. Metalcore bands should be included as well because metalcore is a fusion genre of hardcore punk and metal and was an offshoot of the crossover thrash scene. Rapcore bands should be included because rapcore is a fusion genre of hip-hop and punk. Bigger issue: Nothing on this page is sourced, which should be #1 priority right now. NO additions should be made unless sourced, and bands for which a source cannot be found should be tagged or removed--3family6 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I'll start putting in sources immediately. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bands added and removed

Okay, I've recently incorporated most of my original picks into the current formatting. I will finish sourcing it later, but for now please don't remove any bands without posting your reasoning in this section FIRST. I'd like to not start an edit war again. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the sources were unreliable. For internet sources, I would stick with AllMusic (reviews and bios), MusicMight, About.com, Cross Rhythms, Jesus Freak Hideout (unless a reader review), tollbooth.org, HM Magazine, AbsolutePunk, and Sputnikmusic (only if a Staff Review). Metal for Jesus! and The Whipping Post websites deal with metal, but they are reliable and might mention punk or metalcore. I am sure there are other sources, but the above I know meet reliability policies. Any book sources published by a third party are also reliable (Google Books often is a good place to start).--3family6 (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Helpful tip: With any band on the List of Christian metal bands that mentions a punk style in its sources, just copy and paste over to here and change the date for the source access. Should be easier and quicker than typing everything out.--3family6 (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'll add the sources as I find them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've pushed ahead with your agenda and I'm angry about it. While it doesn't break any rules in WP:LIST it breaks several rules of organization. You are adding the same bands across several articles and that's not ideal for maintenance. At this point I think Cross Rhythms is an unreliable source. When you're finished, I plan to review sources and if they're in both this and the metal list and have sources that claim they're both metal and punk they will both be marked with dubious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There were already bands in multiple lists before I even started (i.e. plenty of ska bands) and in any case, 3family6 already pointed out that hardcore bands, as long as they are sourced, belong here, whether or not they are already on the metal list. If you have any other complaints about individual bands besides for that, please post them here and others will decide whether or not they should be removed. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There were no ska bands in multiple lists. I made sure of that.
I don't mind if the hardcore are only here, but it's not appropriate to have them in both lists.
If I have serious concerns, I'll apply them directly to the list and then post here. If it's a minor concern, I'll consult first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There were ska bands here before I started editing, and in any case, again, we already agreed that since metalcore and its subsidiaries (deathcore, etc.) are both metal AND punk, bands in those categories belong in both lists. In fact, you haven't really linked to any specific wikipedia policies that that would be violating. Care to do so?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the list before you started editing. Which Ska bands are listed here? I've already stated that there are not specific Wikipedia polices that it would be violating but it does break rules of organization. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Dingees, Five Iron Frenzy, Sounds Like Chicken, and Squad Five-O are all ska bands and were all here before I started editing.
I'm looking over WP:L right now, and I don't see any "rules of organization" that this article has violated. If you are thinking of any in particular that I may have missed, please link to them and we'll have something to discuss. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The Dingees aren't ska so I could imagine that there were here. FIF weren't. Please show where those bands were here before you started editing. Not sure about the other two. Feel free to show how all but the Dingees were here.
The rules of organization isn't on WP:L. Talk to a librarian or archivist to learn them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now I know the reason for your objections as to multiple list inclusions, so now maybe we can figure out some solutions. Unfortunately, using an organization system as you propose violates WP:OR and probably WP:SYNTH. Also, some styles of music like metalcore, ska-punk, blues-rock, or Merseybeat, truly are more than one style and therefore have to be put on more than one list. But one way to help the problem of multiple list inclusions would be to break down the lists into more specific lists, which on this and the Christian metal list page will also help with size problems. Perhaps there should be a List of Christian metalcore bands that both the List of Christian metal bands and the List of Christian punk bands link to? (By the way, this was some of the reasoning behind my proposed organization plan for the Christian metal list, which is still up on my user page.) If separate lists are created, there will still be multiple inclusions, but they will be much less (for example, many metalcore bands will also be post-hardcore, but they won't be side by side with pop-punk).--3family6 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: My list as it is on my user page will not work because of this from WP:L: "If a list entry logically belongs in two or more categories (e.g., an Australian in an Argentine prison for drug trafficking), this suggests that the list categorization might be flawed, and should be re-examined." But my user page project might provide some ideas as for how to break up lists.--3family6 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the Ska "problem" is easy to solve as I realized after I finished editing last night. Since it's a short list, we could merge it into this list or the dance/hip hop list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Little help with the citations

I'm working on sourcing this thing, but I'm a horrible novice at using the cite web tags. I'll do what I can, but feel free to fix any errors I make with it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Start by not adding parameters that you don't have. So in one of the recent additions
url =http://jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/AceTroubleshooter.asp
| title =
| author =
| date = January 27, 2011
| work =
| publisher = jesusfreakhideout.com
accessdate = January 27, 2011
don't use the parameter's on bold. I keep the refs vertically, the way I've done here, and enter what I know in a text editor. I then remove the empty lines and join all the lines together (my text editor does that in a single keystroke) then I can paste what's leftover into the article I'm working on.
url =http://jesusfreakhideout.com/artists/AceTroubleshooter.asp | date = January 27, 2011 | publisher = jesusfreakhideout.com | accessdate = January 27, 2011
If you're not used to using a text editor, it will take a bit of time to learn, but once you do, you'll find that you can be much more productive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps a lot.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alot of this stuff isn't punk

Family Force 5, Gwen Stacy, Queens Club, As Cities Burn, The Fold, Manafest, Ivoryline and Thousand Foot Krutch aren't punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.40.176 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources need to be added to the article, and though I do not have time to do so myself, I will list some here for the artists you mentioned: FF5 is crunkcore and contain elements of disco punk as well as pure punk- [3][4], [5]; Gwen Stacy is metalcore- [6]; Cities Burn is hardcore and screamo- [7] [8], The Fold are emo- [9]; Ivoryline is emo-[10] TFK are nu-metal and hardcore with ska punk influences-[11],[12]. You may be right as to Queens Club and Manafest, but there could be sources for them too, I haven't spent much time researching for this post.--3family6 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Just listened to FF5 again, and there is no element of punk at all in their music. They're closer to KISS than they are to the Dead Kennedys. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Though you may be very experienced with this type of music, and certainly are more experienced than I am, your opinion is WP:OR. Even if Cross Rhythms is unreliable (which it is not) and we ignored their mention of punk elements, FF5 is considered by reliable sources to be "crunk rock," which is the same thing as "crunkcore," which is a fusion genre of crunk (a hip hop style) and screamo (a punk style).--3family6 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

?

I Think that the bands on this list should be PUNK and nothing but. Rapcore, Metalcore, Deathcore, Emo and Pop rock (so-called pop punk) shouldn't be confused with ACTUAL PUNK. Hardcore bands I think are good on this list, But punk should'nt be confused with all the other rock genres.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.40.176 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then go ahead and create separate list articles for all of the styles you mentioned. No one is stopping you. (Also, please do not create a whole bunch of different sections when discussing basically the same thing. It clutters the page and only hinders discussion and consensus building.)--3family6 (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with 3family6. The introduction clearly indicates that all the sub-genres are included so it's not really an issue. not to annoy you, but we may move the list of Christian Ska bands in here too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

emo is NOT punk

Many of the bands on the list are emo which ISN'T punk. These two genres should not be confused as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.40.176 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Emo is an offshoot of hardcore punk. Unless a separate page is created for emo, all emo bands stay.--3family6 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Grunge and post-grunge

According to wikipedia, it seems, grunge is a punk metal fusion genre, and post-grunge merely a more commercial and radio-friendly version of it. Based on this, it would stand to reason that both genres are punk and that bands in those categories should be added here, but I would like to get consensus before I go ahead with that.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew this was going to come next! I'll look in to this one as well when I have time to research alternative rock. From the Allmusic bio of the style, grunge was pretty much punk until Nirvana became mainstream, so for now I would say include pure grunge bands, but not post-grunge.--3family6 (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I was kind of being a genre warrior up there:) Anyway, I've given up fighting for alt-rock since it seems to be more of a collection of genres than a genre itself. However, going solely by Wikipedia itself, it seems to be that the only real difference between pure grunge and post-grunge is, as I said above, post-grunge is more radio-friendly. I won't go to war over it or anything, but I think post-grunge is close enough to real grunge to be considered punk.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason I specified grunge and not post-grunge is the Allmusic bio, which says that grunge was a very punk heavy style until Nirvana hit mainstream, so post-grunge, which is because of Nirvana's success and mainstream, is not punk. If you can find another source that says otherwise (which there might as well be), feel free to include that. With alt-rock, yeah, that's the problem, it isn't one single style combination, and should be a case by case basis (i.e., Michael Knott/Lifesavers Underground are punk and/or punk based, while Daniel Amos are not nearly as punk based, if at all).--3family6 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
You have a good point about grunge, I admit I hadn't actually read that article when I replied to you. On the other hand, wikipedia's own article on post-grunge states right in the lead "Post-grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock that emerged in the mid-1990s as a derivative of grunge, utilizing the sounds and aesthetic of grunge, but with a more commercially acceptable tone. It doesn't really mention any other difference between the two genres other than that. Also, the allmusic page for post-grunge mentions that one of the influences on the genre was pop-punk. That's probably pretty weak, but I'll let you be the judge of that.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, from reading about post-grunge on About.com an AllMusic, grunge is absolutely a punk fusion genre. However, both sites make a distinction between grunge and post-grunge, and AllMusic is very specific. Quote:"After Nirvana crossed over into the mainstream, grunge lost many of its independent and punk connections and became the most popular style of hard rock in the '90s." So, it might still be punk enough to be on the list, but we need another source, as AllMusic seems to be saying that its not really punk.--3family6 (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolute Punk

After taking a look at Absolute Punk, I have found that the reliability of the site depends on its use. It seems to be like New Release Tuesday in that artist profiles can be user generated (unreliable) as well as created by staff (reliable). Unfortunately, unlike New Release Tuesday, the site does not display who made the latest edit to a profile, so artist profiles on Absolute Punk are unreliable. Reviews still look okay, and should have no problems.--3family6 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: Make sure a review is not user generated, which most of them seem to be.--3family6 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

allmusic style references

Just out of curiosity, why are the "styles" listed on an artist's allmusic page considered unreliable? I've done a quick run-through of the site, and from what I can tell, the styles are no more user-manipulated than the rest of the site. I know their genre listings are a little offbeat, but is there a reason why the styles aren't accepted as sources?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in past discussions this was decided because we can't attribute the styles to a writer the way we can on MusicMight. This is the same thing for Jesus Freak Hideout, we don't know who put the styles up. Doesn't mean that they're user generated, just un-attributable.--3family6 (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about that, the reviews and bios aren't exactly attributable either (in the sense that they aren't followed by an author's name), but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
They should have a name on the top right hand corner of the review or bio, for example Relient K should say "by Steve Huey" opposite from where it says "Biography" on the left.--3family6 (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that. Guess I'll have to let this one lie.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, I'm still unfamiliar with identifying a lot of sources, so I understand.--3family6 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jonas Brothers aren't punk!

I saw jonas brothers on the list There are NOT punk! Neither is relient k —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.40.176 (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jonas Bros (and they're not particularly Christian), but Relient K are pop punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
They are only called pop punk on the Jesus Freak Hideout artist list, which I don't think is as reliable as the Jonas Brothers page on JFH. I will remove them.--3family6 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
And that's my concern about Jesus Freak Hideout. I think we can trust the ratings from their reviews and their interviews are fairly good, but I don't know if we can trust their genre classifications. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Based on that, removed All Star United. Anyone who's heard them knows they have no punk influence. The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (only up to their 2002 release) indicates that they're a "'90's update of the Turtles" or "Oasis meets the Monkees" and "retro pop" and talks like this about their first "hit", "'Smash Hit,' an irresistible Beatles-style ditty". It later talks about their second album sowing a "progression musically from the retro '60s sound to more of a retro '80s style—influences of Abba, Elton John, and Blondie are noticeable." And by Blondie, he means the disco-inspired tunes, not the new wave tracks. Even their article doesn't support those pop-punk attributions. So Jesus Freak Hideout has no clue yet again how to classify a non-dance, non-hop hop genre and should not be used to classify bands for this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Jesus Freak Hideout was determined to be reliable by the reliable sources noticeboard (though I am having trouble sifting through the archives to find the discussion). However, I think you are correct in that JFH tags are unreliable. Reviews though are fine, as long as they are not reader reviews. And my final note: the JFH All Star United profile doesn't even list punk anyway.--3family6 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
They're a good source for determining an artist's Christianity, but I admit that they're not the best with genres (As I Lay Dying is listed as "post-hardcore"). They're a good starting point, but I admit that JB and ASU need a little bit more sourcing to be considered pop-punk.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Their listings are a good starting point as you said, but are not that reliable. Go for their staff reviews, those are reliable.--3family6 (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but this bio is a little interesting. Maybe with a couple more sources we could make it pop punk (early)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me.--3family6 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about RS

I don't know the WP:RS rules well enough but it doesn't "specifically says no webzines". It reads:

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.

Notice that it's a BLP issue, not a list issue and as such doesn't apply here. Is there another section? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As for copyrighting, why copyright when by US law any material that is published is copyrighted by its author. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that it was a BLP issue afterward when I re-read everything. But it does say for general content that "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."--3family6 (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Different issue now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bands with Christian periods

An issue that was raised by the above discussion on blessthefall is whether or not to include bands that were once Christian (I'll put the same question to bands that started secular and became Christian). I don't think there's a problem with including them, but we need some way of designating that they were once Christian/once not Christian. I was thinking something along the lines of some sort of parenthetical or symbol next to the band's name, but that's all I've got. Any other suggestions?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Parentheses could work. But make sure you have a reliable source saying that they were or became Christian, in other words, there needs to be a source documenting the change.--3family6 (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding bands with no articles might be okay

Recently, WP:WTAF was cited as a reason not to include Hangnail, and by extension other bands who do not have articles here. However, while working on the List of emo artists recently, I came across WP:NNC, which states that notability only applies to article creation, not to article and list content. In other words, someone or something can be included within an article or list without meeting the notability guidelines. As a result, there are several artists on that list who are simply text with sources, not linking to an article. Being that the former is simply an advice essay and the latter is an official Wikipedia guideline, I think it would be okay to include bands without articles. We obviously can't include every band with a myspace/facebook page, but I think as long as we stick to bands and artists that have been mentioned in reliable sources, things shouldn't get to out of hand. Any objections?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that general consensus frowns on redlinks on list, but personally I'm to busy to go and dig up evidence of this. I hope to create the Hangnail article soon anyway, so I don't care.--3family6 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right, but we could just do what they did on the Emo list and put it the artist simply as text, for example:
  • Hangnail - pop punk[1]
As long as there's reliable sources (as there are on the emo list), I don't really see a problem with it.
P.S. I left a question two topics up about bands who used to be Christian and aren't anymore, but nobody seems to have seen it yet. Care to take a look at it?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter now anyway, I had some free time this morning so I created the article.--3family6 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

However, WP:NNC also states "some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people", and that's what this group does. I'm not sure that we want every garage band listed here. The list would be endless. Then you'd have to argue for sources, which would also limit notability in a different way. It's easier to restrict the requirement to notability at the level of having an article. Thanks for creating that first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, but I think if an artist has been covered by multiple reliable sources yet, for whatever reason, doesn't have an article here, it can be assumed that they have moved past the "garage band" stage. As I said before, it doesn't have to be everyone's brother's band that has a Myspace page; if there are reliable sources (and I think we're clear on how to tell by now) that cover the band, I don't see a problem with including them. All that would be required is a simple change of the lead.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Invisiboy. If a band is mentioned in multiple reliable sources, it should be listed even if the article has not yet been created (this also can help keep IPs from getting frustrated, as they can't create articles themselves, but may have found a reliably mentioned artist.)--3family6 (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Different method of categorization?

Since there are obviously more subgenres of punk than pop-punk and hardcore, maybe next to each band's name we could put the exact genre of punk they fall under in parentheses e.g. Flatfoot 56 (Celtic punk)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiboy42293 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Question - With the list of subgenres a band plays, should they be limited to just punk style, or to every style the band is sourced as playing (because with bands like Showbread it can get quite long)?--3family6 (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Long lists should be shortened to include only the major genres and they shouldn't be restricted to punk sub-genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that was my line of reasoning too. Though with As I Lay Dying and Showbread, the two bands that inspired my above question, the listed genres are their major styles, which I guess says something about their music (though I'm not quite sure what).--3family6 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This list is really getting out of hand with all of the genres, as sources can be found for most artists that end up having them play a whole bunch of styles. Maybe we should stick to just punk styles?--3family6 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to bring that up myself. While sticking to only punk styles might not be such a good idea ("emo" hardly does Owl City justice by itself), I think eliminating genres where there are also sub-genres present would be a good start. For example, if a band is sourced as "metalcore", it's self-evident that metal and hardcore are in the mix, so there's no reason to put either in. More broadly, the very title of the list indicates that all bands on the list are either punk or a subgenre thereof, so unless it's the only punk genre a band is sourced as, I say remove it. It also might be a good idea to remove genres that have no article of their own and don't redirect to anything (alternative pop/rock, alt-screamo, etc.). Try splitting them up (i.e. "emo/metal" for "emo-metal") or else just forget it. I think that would be a good start.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Now can we agree not to use Cross Rhythms as a source? =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Nah, sorry. Still meets WP:RS. We can be a bit more careful with them, though.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm employing those suggestions right now, but let me know if I take it too far.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Done, but again, let me know if I went too far.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice job, Invisiboy. A couple I think overgeneralized, and so I changed them, and at least one I removed purely heavy metal styles. I apologize if any of my edits somehow violate 3RR.--3family6 (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

My only objection would be that screamo is a fusion of hardcore and emo ([1]). Even the name is a combination of "scream" and "emo", so I think it's a little redundant to list both for the same artist. Other than that, good job.
On a side note, I think it would be a good idea to list only punk genres, since this isn't a list of "alternative" or "hard rock" bands. The point is to identify them as punk, not to describe their overall sound.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think so too, though sometimes alternative can be punk, as discussed.--3family6 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

as per the undoing of my last undo of Kutless

I have an issue. A very, very large issue. This has become a joke. See above. See the Kutless discussion above. If you don't fix the issues, I will deal with it all myself. This article is too inclusive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that the grunge reference is weak, because Allmusic mentions "neo-grunge," which would be modern grunge which has much less punk in its sound. I wish we could settle the emo thing, the NPOV board hasn't responded yet.--3family6 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
See my response to those points above, in the Kutless section. None of the three sources are vague in the least. They are:
Admittedly the second ref only refers to their debut album, but the other two directly refer to Kutless as grunge. The fact that they also mention other genres does not mitigate that.
I would also like to remind everyone that Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, not our opinions. If Rebecca St. James and Steven Curtis Chapman were identified as some form of punk by reliable sources, we would have to add them here, our own personal objections notwithstanding.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's my response, Grunge-pop is not a punk genre. Grunge rock is not a punk genre. Neo-grunge isn't a genre at all and certainly not a punk genre. These are all throw-away terms that are no indication of the band's true genre. See above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Way to make bald assertions with no sources cited. All three refer to grunge, which, according to allmusic, "was a hybrid of heavy metal and punk". If you have sources that say grunge is not punk, feel free to share them. If you do not, I will have to assume that you have none and are basing those assertions on your own opinion.
Also, a punk genre doesn't need to be a band's main genre for them to be included here. Superchick is much more than just pop punk, yet they are listed here under only that label, inasmuch as other genres that have been attached to them would not validate their inclusion on this list.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
See above. See above. See above. I'm quite close to letting you patrol this article for vandalism and other non-productive activities. The over-generous inclusion of the slightest mention of a remotely-related possible punk genre as grounds for inclusion in this list makes 1) the list a waste since it means nothing, 2) you look desperate for inclusion on this list and 3) a waste of resources of both other editors and Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on bands

This seems to be working for the Christian metal page, so let's try it. This is to get consensus on bands whose status as either punk or Christian is disputed. The instructions are the same (copied from the Christian metal page):

"To establish a consensus of a band, add the band below as a subheading of the Bands section, then cast your vote with a bold Include or Exclude, followed by your reasoning and your signature. If you wish to change your vote later on perhaps because people Have presented a good case for including the band, Strike out your previous vote Like this, and put a new vote, reason and signature beneath your old vote."

Objection: 1) Why do we need to do this? How about just finding sources, as that is ultimately what really worked on the Christian metal list? 2) See WP:POLL.--3family6 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We still need to find sources, but the problem is that this talk page has become so cluttered with new topics for individual bands that it's hard to remember which had consensus reached on them and what the consensus was. Also, there is a tendency among users to add or remove artists without presenting any accompanying reasoning, much less a source. Basically, it's not exactly "needed", but it's certainly helpful for getting all the consensus in one place, as well as avoiding edit wars by giving people a place to voice any concerns about a new addition. It's not a replacement for sources or a poll. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Most of the discussions on this page give no references to sources, so unless a discussion does, it can just be ignored. I guess the point I am trying to say is that shouldn't we source bands first, and if an objection comes up, then we develop a consensus? There's no point coming up with a consensus that X band should be on the list, when there are no sources that say so. If a user adds a band with no source, an editor should either search for one or just delete the entry.--3family6 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Three concerns
  1. Can we source that the band had a major period in punk sub-genre
  2. Can we source that the band is considered by a WP:RS (or at least a WP:V) that they're a "Christian band" (with all the vagaries around that)
  3. Should we care if there's a source that says the band doesn't think of themselves as a, or doesn't think that they're a, or doesn't want to be pigeon-holed as a Christian band.
The three are constant points of potential difference on this and other lists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are good points, Walter. The first two seem to just be pointing out criteria, but the last one reads like a question, so I'll take a stab at it (anyone else here can too). If a band has a reliable source that calls into question their Christianity, I think they should be removed, though I think that the article lead should make this clear. It seems to work pretty well on the list of Christian metal bands, except when I make stupid mistakes.--3family6 (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

mot so much whether someone calls the band's or an influential member's faith into question, but more like Switchfoot not wanting to be known as a Christian band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I don't know. Unless the source says "they're not a Christian band" or something to that effect, they should still be included.--3family6 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair concerns all. Sources are still first priority, but I say we keep this open in case we come across any questionable cases like the one below. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. As long as straight up or down voting is not the deciding factor.--3family6 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bands

Kutless

Okay, here's one for discussion (not voting!): The Allmusic biography of Falling Up calls Kutless a metal-tinged emo band. WP:UNDUE weight has been cited as a reason for them not to be included, and I guess my question is whether there are enough sources for what style of rock that Kutless play to make this a minority viewpoint.--3family6 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The All music bio is nonsense. It uses one word loosely. It assumes that all screaming is emo when in the case of Kutless it's just screaming. They are hard rock for the most part with tinges of worship music (they started as a worship band). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have sources? I have looked at the sentence several times, and it does not appear to be used in a loose way by the reviewer. Now, it is the only ref that I have found so far that calls them emo, but I'm not sure that means that the AllMusic bio is nonsense, and none of the sources I've seen so far cast doubt on AllMusic's statement.--3family6 (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of those refs are first party, but even those pretty much echo what I've found, which is: "hard rock," "grunge," "alternative," "CCM," "praise and worship," "pop rock," "melodic rock/hard rock," and just plain "rock." No mention of a punk style, but I'm still not sure if we could say that the Allmusic ref is a fringe opinion. Editorial: I do hear some pop-punk and few hardcore stylings on their "Sea of Faces" album, but that is one album and my opinion.--3family6 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really listen to them, so I wouldn't know :)--3family6 (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Grunge is a punk/metal fusion, so they belong here and on the metal list. Consider it done.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Walter, your reasoning for not accepting the mention of emo on the Falling Up allmusic bio seems a little too close to WP:OR. The writer clearly identifies Kutless as primarily "a Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo". Unless you have a better reasoning for not accepting it, I think we should put that ref back in.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I seem to have removed this from my watch list. Yes, my argument is very subjective. However any source that claims they're emo either hasn't listened to the band or is simply misunderstanding the genre or is using language loosely. I mean what does "fairly standard-issue Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo" really mean? The sentence is essentially nonsense. They have the occasional screamed vocals, but that's not emo. Also, the review above is for an entirely different band: Falling Up. http://allmusic.com/artist/kutless-p534207 is the Kutless review: "Christian alternative band specializing in melodic hard rock" and by alternative, they don't mean that they evolved from a punk into new wave and then into Kutless, they mean non-mainstream rock. So since two reviewers differ, I go for the review from the one paid to review the band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to stay out of this for the most part, but do the two reviewers actually contradict, or do they just differ from each other? In other words, is one person calling a band "emo" and another person calling the same band "alternative melodic hard rock" actually contradictory? Another point that I would make is that Owl City has been called emo, and I am pretty sure he never, ever screams.--3family6 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
They only differ. Kutless reviewer writes: "Christian alternative band specializing in melodic hard rock" and the Falling Up reviewer writes, to compare them to Kutless that the latter is "fairly standard-issue Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The two bios are by two different authors (Stewart Mason and Erik Hage), so of course each one has a different opinion of the band. I don't see how that invalidates one or the other.
  • It doesn't matter who the main focus is; the author, presumably being familiar with Kutless, directly labels them "emo-tinged metal" - as in emo that is tinged with metal. You could argue that the author of the bio hasn't reviewed any of the band's albums and thus has little experience with them, but that still doesn't prove that he's never heard them.
  • Whether or not any of us considers the band "emo" or thinks the reviewer intentionally used that term, we have a reliable source that directly identifies their music as such, which is all that is needed to include the genre.
As a side note, no, Owl City doesn't scream.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The quote is not "emo-tinged metal" it's "fairly standard-issue Christian gloss on metal-tinged emo". So first, you had the metal and emo backward, and it's a complete phrase it's a "gloss" on metal-tinged emo, and it's standard-issue at that. I think the guy's not altogether there though. I would suggest a second source to back it up since I can't imagine them being emo just because the lead vocalist screams on perhaps five words in each of five songs of their catalogue. That's not screamo or emo. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything, the proper version is a better argument to put it back in, since the author considers emo their primary genre and metal only a "tinge".
  • A "gloss" on a genre is still that genre (especially a "Christian gloss", which is essentially giving a genre Christian lyrics).
  • While multiple sources are preferred, only one is needed for inclusion; otherwise, many of the bands currently on here could be removed or have genres removed.
  • Again, what you or any of us "thinks" about the author or the band does does not matter. What matters is that a paid professional music critic considers the band to be emo. If a paid professional music critic called Coldplay hip-hop, that would also have to be included. Wikipedia runs on the statements and opinions of reliable sources, not ours.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Found a source that calls them emo-rock: http://thepunksite.com/reviews.php?page=album/e_n/kutless_seaoffaces. It has a staff and editor (the editor wrote the review) and if you right-click on the page and select "View Page Info", you can see that it's copyrighted; in other words, it meets WP:RS.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it a zine, or is the staff paid?--3family6 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on the fact that the site has a copyright notice, I would say yes. Why go to the trouble of copyrighting something if you're just doing it for fun?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Technically they don't have to copyright the material, it automatically is copyright if they are in the US. But that is not enough to know if they are a professional organization with editorial oversight. If the source was published by a third party, then it is fine, but in this case it is self-published, so we need to make sure that it is high-quality, and not just some website that a group of people made up.--3family6 (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the site's staff page, on which Bobby Gorman, the writer of that Kutless review I linked to above, is clearly labeled as "Founder - Editor - Interviews / Reviews Editor". I don't know if this is good enough, but what do you think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
It's not. It almost seems like it's Gorman's personal site. But "Cole Faulkner - Free Music Blog and Reviewer" appears to legitimate it better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
If that's the case, it would seem (to me, anyway) that the site is a reliable source, and thus can be used to back up the AllMusic bio and re-add it. Any objections?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think we know enough about the site and/or the founder.--3family6 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
What would you recommend looking for to close the deal, so to speak?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Better evidence of direct editorial oversight, and very strong evidence that Gorman is a professional, which would probably be mention in a reliable source or evidence that he writes for a reliable source.--3family6 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This might be completely worthless, but I ran a google search and turned up this, which appears to be some sort of online resume written by Gorman. At the bottom, he writes:
"Run and operate ThePunkSite.com. On top of designing and creating the site, I manage the content, assign and co-ordinate writers all over North America, organize their pieces and make sure everything is working properly on the site.
ThePunksite.com is an online music website which I created in 2003. Since it's inception, I have gained multiple contacts throughout the entire music community, from promoters to record labels and bands all over the globe. I have worked with prominent labels such as Warner Music, Universal Music, EMI Records, SongBMG, Capitol Records, Epitaph Records, Fat Wreck Chords, SideOneDummy Records, Victory Records, Virgin Records, Fearless Records, Fueled By Ramen Records, A-F Records, Eyeball Records, Ferret Music, Red Scare Industries, WindUp Records, BYO Records, Underground Operations, Volcom Records, Equal Vision Records, One Eleven Records, Hopeless Records, and many more.
Through my work on this website I have become very familiar with the music industry as I need to stay on top of current and upcoming releases along with an in-depth knowledge of touring schedules both in Edmonton and around the world. I have also gained a thorough knowledge of different musical artists from both the past and present."
I don't if that's good enough to establish him as a reliable source, but there it is.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
If you can find proof for one of those, that's definitely enough.--3family6 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
A little shaky, but this review compares Ivoryline to "Kutless, Anberlin, and every other emo-alterna-punk band I’ve ever heard." Combined with the allmusic ref, might that be enough?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm too tired right now to dig into whether it's reliable. I'm thinking of bringing up the Allmusic question up on the reliable sources noticeboard, to get something definite from someone outside.--3family6 (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
From the bottom of the page: C. E. Moore - Founder/Admin | Melissa Willis -- Fiction Editor | Brian C. Hall -- Music Editor

About us. | Login | © Copyright 2007 - 2011 The Christian Manifesto

Looks professional to me, but I could be wrong.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The copyright info isn't enough, but I checked the about us section and contact us sections, and they look reliable enough. If someone disagrees, let them speak now.--3family6 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since one now supports the other, I'm just gonna put that and the Falling Up bio in as references, unless anyone objects.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
After some time away from this discussion to think, I do not think that The Punksite is reliable, at least withe the info we have so far. I have posted the "emo" question on the neutral point of view noticeboard, so let's wait to see how that goes. I'm not sure the grunge thing works, as allmusic calls them "neo-grunge," and in allmusic's description of grunge it says that the newer versions have a lot less punk, and also, about.com calls them the "lighter side of grunge," so I don't think "grunge" is strong enough. I'm removing the band for now pending the NPOV discussion.--3family6 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
But what about the Christian Manifesto review? I thought we agreed it was reliable.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
They seem reliable, but it would be good if there was some third party confirmation.--3family6 (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if undue weight really applies here at all. The only claim made by any band's placement on this list is that they are (a)Christian and (b)some form of punk. Kutless is obviously Christian, and as has been mentioned before, no reliable sources have turned up that contradict allmusic's emo claim. Therefore, putting them in with the AllMusic reference would, in my opinion, not be contradicting any large mass of reliable sources.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
As far as grunge, I think you're misinterpreting some of those sources. AllMusic (by which I assume you mean this review) only makes reference to "hearty neo-grunge riffs", not the band itself. About.com (assuming you mean this supports what you said ("soft side of grunge", same thing), but it only refers to one album, and I'd like to point out that the "soft side of grunge" would still be grunge. The AllMusic description of grunge says that grunge "lost many of its independent and punk connections", not that the sound became less punk. Regarding Kutless, they are called elsewhere on AllMusic "grunge-pop rockers", JFH reviewer Zachary Anderson mentions their "raw, grunge rock debut", and Russ Breimeier of TheFish.com (owned by Christianity Today) states that Kutless "were one of the first to emerge on the scene as a Christian alternative to neo-grunge metal acts" and "handle grunge pop/rock better than most."
Okay, rant over, but I hope you get my point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Who am I to disagree with those sources. With regard to emo, the NPOV noticeboard has a backlog, so no one has answered yet.--3family6 (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pillar

This is a little bit of a stretch, but the articles for Above and Fireproof (as well as this review) list "rapcore" as one of their genres, and while that's obviously no longer applicable, their appearance in some of their recent promotional images (example), as well as in their video for "Whatever It Takes", seem to indicate an intent to appeal to the emo/punk crowds, which might reflect on their music to a degree. I realize that's pretty flimsy reasoning, but perhaps it's worth considering?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The "pop/hardcore" and "rapcore" mentions might be enough as they encompass two separate albums, but I would snoop around for a few more references to make sure.--3family6 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Will do.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
These are probably not that good, but here is the result of a Google Books search for "pillar rapcore". Both appear to have been written around the time of the band's first two album, and both refer to Pillar as "rapcore". Also, their Rhapsody bio, apparently written around the time of The Reckoning based on the song titles, mentions hardcore and screamo. Would any of those be reliable?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Found some refs and added them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Mortification

Yes, I am being serious. I know Mortification is a heavy metal band, but during their early period their sound included grindcore, which is a punk-metal fusion genre. Does anyone think that this warrants inclusion?--3family6 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can source it, feel free to add them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Queens Club

Is one song really enough to include them on this list?--3family6 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose not. I'll keep looking for better sources, but feel free to remove them if you see fit. --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This might be just grasping at straws, but I've seen a lot of sources, including the band themselves, refer to their sound as garage rock, electronic rock, and dance-rock, all of which, according to wikipedia, have connections to punk. If I can source these, can I put them back in?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The only one that might work is dance-rock, which one writer called "post-punk/post-disco fusion." I'm not sure that one reference is enough, if you can find one or two more that actually mention it as a direct punk offshoot or combination, then I would say yes.--3family6 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at the garage rock article, and is does mention it sometimes being considered a punk style, but it is un-cited and there is no further information elsewhere in the article. If it can be confirmed that it is sometimes considered a punk style, then it will count.--3family6 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment on formatting: you don't have to pipe like this [[Garage rock|garage rock]]. The linking tool knows that the first letter on all articles is upper case so you can just type [[garage rock]] and it get you to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the the tip, Walter. As I understand it, garage rock was a form of proto-punk or "punk before there was punk", and electronic rock and dance-rock are apparently post-punk styles. Unfortunately, the sources I had in mind (the band's facebook and myspace pages) only mention "garage/electro/pop", which admittedly does not specifically refer to those two genres. However, there are also sources that classify the band as alternative rock, which, according to wikipedia and an allmusic article linked therein, was directly preceded by punk rock, post-punk, hardcore punk, and new wave, all of which are punk styles. Perhaps we could use that?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If alternative rock is the child of those genres I will have to modify a lot of Christian bands since they're now considered alternative rock but were never punk rock. they were new wave though. I'm thinking of The Choir, Daniel Amos, and The 77s in particular, but others fall into that category. We have to be careful as to inherited genres to understand what it currently means, not where its roots are from. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you 100% there. It has to be a direct offshoot punk style or punk fusion to count. Ex: Alternative rock is a wide-encompassing term for a bajillion different styles, and new wave was originally punk but became more of a separate alternative rock style; styles like grindcore or punk-pop are direct punk offshoot/fusion styles.--3family6 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

According to allmusic and wikipedia, alternative rock was parented by post-punk, which makes it technically a punk offshoot. Unless there's a source to the contrary, I think we should go with that.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative rock certainly started as a punk style (U2 and Steve Taylor are good examples), but it quickly became a style of its own. I don't have sources right now, but I know that they will back me up, I just haven't had the time to research it. Also, if we include alternative rock, two-thirds of the entire CCM industry would be listed here.--3family6 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, and I would like to avoid that too, but here's from the wiki article: "Alternative rock consists of various subgenres that have emerged from the independent music scene since the 1980s, such as grunge, Britpop, gothic rock, and indie pop. These genres are unified by their collective debt to the style and/or ethos of punk rock, which laid the groundwork for alternative music in the 1970s." (And that has a source.) If we go by that, we would have to assume that not only did alt-rock start as a punk style, but that it and its subgenres continue to be so today. If that's true, we need to go by it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would point out that it specifies 1970s alternative music, but now I'm getting into really nitpicking stuff. To really properly understand what alt-rock was and now is requires a lot of research. I think maybe we should consult some of the major contributors for the alt-rock article, and they should be able to help us sift through sources. This is probably something that will take weeks or months to properly research.--3family6 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I read it as saying that the groundwork for alternative was laid in the 1970s, rather than referring to the alternative scene at that time, and the first part of that sentence is in the present tense and specifically identifies punk rock as a "style and/or ethos" model for those genres. Still, it is a bit of a catch-all term, and most alt-rock bands have secondary genres to qualify, so perhaps we can take it on a case by case basis. The verdict in this case would depend on whether post-punk and/or its sub-genres are "punk" enough to warrant inclusion, since many of the sourceable genres for this band are in that category.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may take a swing at this semi-conscious beast of burden, there are a few sources that describe the band as having "a twinge" or "a hint" of punk rock. Might that be good enough for inclusion?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's enough. We need something a little more tangible. If there is a ref that mentions punk influences, because Queens Club plays a style originally rooted in punk, I think that could be enough.--3family6 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
There is this Cross Rhythms review, but I'm not sure if it's referring to the whole album or just a few songs. Still, it might be worth something. Also, here's the sources I mentioned before: Young Giant - Queens Club | AllMusic, New Music Thursday – Queens Club « The FADER --96.229.100.233 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)P.S. This is Invisiboy, I just forgot to log in before writing this.
The Fader ref looks reliable, and the others definitely are. Because dance rock, electronic rock, and alt rock have punk roots, several mentions of punk influences should be enough for inclusion.--3family6 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Memphis May Fire

  • First, it appears Indie Vision Music is a WP:RS based on this bio from the owner and operator of the site (which is technically a high-quality blog), in which he states that he has a "passion for “Christian Music” and music with a faith based message", in addition to claiming to be a "music fan" and having an "addiction for music". I think that qualifies as being an "expert", though I'm open to being proven wrong.
  • Second, assuming it is, this review is a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he states that while they "may not be a Christian band, there are Christians in the band", which would ordinarily be vague enough to exclude them (How many? How do you know?); on the other hand, he is reviewing them on a Christian music site, which indicate that at least the site considers the band to be an overall Christian band. What do you guys think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Your first link doesn't work right now, but it doesn't matter because the album reviewer does not appear to be professional (i.e. not paid!). Allmusic's review of the band's first album mentions an affiliation with Christianity, though I'm not sure that's enough.--3family6 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, it works fine for me. Anyway, the site has at least one advertisement, forums, and a subscribable newsletter, all of which seem to indicate more organization than your average self-published blog. Also, the site's Facebook page not only lists a PO box adress, further indicating professionality, but lists several staff members, including Steve Sloan, who appears to be the "Steve" who wrote that review, which would make him a probable professional. I'm not a fan so I don't care, but I think that and the allmusic review should be sufficient sources. Plus, this interview proves that at least one member of the band professes Christianity, partially verifying Sloan's claim.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The link works now, the owner is professional, but I'm still not sure about the site itself. It says pretty much what Allmusic does anyway, we need another ref that's a little more solid.--3family6 (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
This probably won't work, but they have a profile on Cross Rhythms which identifies their "approach" as "ministry". The article linked to above that is a bit shaky as a confirmation, and they say the same thing about The Word Alive but the fact that they have a profile on a site dedicated to Christian music might be worth something.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a little shaky. I'm trying to find something better, but I haven't been able to so far.--3family6 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

http://highwiredaze.com/memphisint.htm Sup? The lead singer claimss christianity here. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Thanks, but I already linked to that above and, unfortunately, one Christian member doesn't make a band Christian, even if he's the one writing the lyrics. The semi-good news is that, while neither of these is even close to a WP:RS, the tracklist for their new album looks very promising ("The Sinner", "The Redeemed", "The Unfaithful", etc.), and when I left a question on their Facebook page about it, they responded that "some" (which I take to mean more than one) of their members are Christian. Like I said, this is not going to cut by Wikipedia standards, so it looks like we'll have to remove them for now, but let's keep an eye out for a source on this.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we should definitely keep an eye out. Right now we're that close to establishing them as a "Christian" group (whatever that means), but not quite enough. I like how you asked them on Facebook, I posted a lot of questions to Kekal when I was working on their page, albums, and band members.--3family6 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry bout that invisiboy! didn't see it. Anyone want me to start up my world famous referance searching mode? DCcomicslover (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

If you have the time and energy, go for it!--3family6 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. After some consideration,the Indie Vision review might be reliable, but even if it is it's not quite enough.--3family6 (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Flyleaf

This review from Jesusfreakhideout.com seems to indicate that their older material was screamo, and an allmusic review for Memento Mori directly labels them as "emo-metal". Based on this, I think "Screamo (early), emo/metal" would be a good genre label for them. Any objections?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The JFH one is weak, but the Allmusic one is better, and also says that Memento Mori "jettisons the raw, punk-infused angst" of the debut album. You might want to find another source, but I think you're good for now.--3family6 (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll add them with the Allmusic review until I find another source.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fireflight

Not sure if all of these are reliable, but this review, this review, and this bio all refer to Fireflight as being "emo-core". Are any of them good enough for adding?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CCM Magazine is perfectly acceptable, and the Crosswalk review appears to be written by a CCM Magazine journalist, so that should be good too. Steal the Spotlight appears to be a webzine, which would make it fail WP:RS unless it's run by someone whose a music writer/expert. My main problem is that all three references mention the style on the album, not the the style of the band. If you can find one for the band itself, then we can put it in.--3family6 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I did find this source for grunge, but that's also only for that one album. I would argue that we could list both as "early", but I can't find any reviews for their previous two albums (Glam-rok and OTSOMF), so even if it were true, it's unsourceable beyond that one album. So until somebody turns up another source, it looks like this one's a no-go.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it'll work, since it's another review of THOH, but this, from Cross Rhythms, says "Fireflight have produced a very heavy progressive rock sound mixed with an occasional sense of emo, sounding fairly similar to Evanescence." Since it refers to the band's "sound" rather than just the album, can we use it?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Cross Rhythms says a lot of things (re-cloaking). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
True, but they are a reliable source. We can't discount a source just because we don't agree with it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
And anyway, we already have Cross Rhythms as a source for multiple artists here and on other lists, so I see no reason to stop now. I say we put them in.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
One comment I would make is though I tend to be the type of person who tries to attach every single genre possible to an artist, is an occasional sense of emo enough to warrant inclusion?--3family6 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Blast. You need to listen to the band. They're not emo. Not even tinges of emo. I'd sooner get rid of all Cross Rhythms references because unless you can find a second source that supports that offhand comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I have listened to several of their songs and don't find the description outlandish at all, but that's beside the point (not to mention my own opinion).
  • "Emo" is a very broad ranging genre (hence why both Owl City and Flyleaf inhabit it), and in any case we're only allowed to trust reliable sources, not our own feelings about something.
  • Cross Rhythms' reliability has already been established and cannot be refuted simply because you don't agree with their classifications.
  • Only one source is needed for inclusion, though more are preferred.
3family6, I see your point, but even an "occasional sense" would suggest elements of emo in the overall sound. I may be wrong, but I think it's good enough.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll only address one point. It's not that I don't agree with their classifications, it's that the reviews from Cross Rhythms frequently stand on their own not agreeing with other interviewers. That was my point. The fact that nearly every modern Christian band is listed here because you scour reviews to find a single word or phrase so that it can be included here has made this article into a worse joke than Cross Rhythms's reviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand; I don't intentionally "scour reviews to find a single word or phrase so that it can be included here". If you look at the sources, you will see that most of them directly identify a band as the listed genre (some don't, and that's something I intend to address in the near future). I wouldn't even be bringing this up if I didn't think the Cross Rhythms review was identifying their sound as emo.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. It's just the Cross Rhythms is usually the outlier in most reviews. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether we think Cross Rhythms is accurate or not should not be an issue. I just think this particular reference is not specific enough to say that "emo" (whatever that means) is more than just a stylistic flavor and is actually a core part of Fireflight's sound. We have no reason to doubt the "emo" tag itself unless a reliable source says the band isn't emo, but in this case the tag is not very solid. As another, semi-related point, many of the new references need to be checked for reliability, as some of them appear questionable. I might bring some of them up on the reliable sources noticeboard.--3family6 (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Skillet (band)

There's several sources (1, 2, and 3) that indicate that the band played grunge early on. Would that be good enough for an add?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, I think it would be, unless some refs that consider grunge separate from punk can be found. I think you can go ahead for now.--3family6 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Blessthefall

I'm not entirely sure they're a Christian band. For starters, only the allmusic ref even refers to them as "Christian-oriented", as opposed to the flat-out "Christian" they use for many of the other bands on this list. The Cross Rhythms ref used on the metal list is something, but it's a review of their first album, before they changed singers (and I'm not even sure about Craig Mabbitt, given that he left the band to front Escape the Fate, who ran an "uncensored" music video on the Playboy Channel). Slightly more solid for the case against is this interview, where one of the band members indicates that they "started off" as a Christian band (dubious for the above reason), yet proceeds to drop an F-bomb and confirm that a phone message from the lead singer's ex-girlfriend containing several F-words was intentionally included (with the profanities barely bleeped out) on their Witness album, right at the beginning of track 5, "Hey Baby...". It's a blog, but if its the actual opinion Finally, for their video for the same song, not only does the phone message make a reappearance, but the video is a blatant homage to The Hangover (film), complete with (among other things) the lead singer passed out in nothing but his underwear, another bleeped-out F-word (this time from bassist and screamer Jared Warth, who claims Christianity) and a reenactment of the naked-man-jumping-out-of-the-car-trunk scene from the aforementioned film (the nudity is pixelated, but still.) I can't imagine any band hoping for any credibility as a "Christian band" (or even as Christians) agreeing to appear in and put their name on such a video. I realize that most of this is probably original research, but I hope this at least is worth something.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

For some vague reason that I can't remember, I also thought that they a band composed of non-Christians with a non-Christian message (this is talk so I can criticize the whole "secular" vs "Christian" band thing if I want), but I saw sources that seemed to support, and added them. While I personally agree that explicit profanity and other immoral activity as you described above is certainly not Christian, you are right in saying that removing them for that alone is WP:OR. But, because of the vagueness of the Allmusic ref and the band interview you linked too, are enough to throw doubt into listing the band. The only problem is Cross Rhythms (again!). The first album review and a news post about the band support them being Christian, and there is nothing on the site (or others that I have seen), that doubts the band's Christianity. If you can find a reliable source that questions the band being Christian, then remove them right away, with an explanation on here of course, but until then, I don't think there is enough info to remove them.--3family6 (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This isn't much good, but neither of the Cross Rhythms sources seem any more solid than the AllMusic one. The album review only mentions that the lyrics are not "overtly Christian" and doesn't say anything about the band as a whole. Similarly, the news story you mentioned, besides mispelling the lead singer's name ("Bolan" instead of "Bokan"), again does not refer to the whole band as Christian, only quoting one of the band members who claims to be a Christian (incidentally, the same one who dropped the F-bomb in the interview I cited above). I admittedly have no sources that they aren't Christian, but, for the reasons explained above, I don't think the sources from Cross Rhythms and AllMusic really support them being Christian, either. For this reason, I think they should be removed from the list.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree about the news article, it seems to support the band being "Christian." Even if it could be determined through sources that they are not Christian, we run into the problem that we have with bands like King's X or Vengeance Rising, which aren't "Christian" anymore, but used to be. On a somewhat relevant note, Revolver Magazine says that during their interview with As I Lay Dying, Demon Hunter, Norma Jean, and Underoath for the "Holy Alliance" article, Spencer Chamberlain dropped an "f-bomb" (though it isn't in the final article), so as much as I disapprove of that kind of thing, does that make Underoath "non-Christian?"--3family6 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as the article(linked for convenience), in the first place I'm not so sure it's reliable; besides the aforementioned misspelling of the singer's name, the article has no author's name attached to it, just the Cross Rhythms logo, which, to my mind, seems to make it about as reliable as the genres listed on a JFH artist page or allmusic's style listings. Second, assuming it is reliable, it doesn't at all refer to the band as a "Christian band". It includes a quote from one band member who sayshe is a Christian and the song has a Christian meaning, but nowhere in the article is it stated that the band itself is a Christian band. Now, as I said, the interview cited above indicates that the band once considered themselves a Christian band, but even that is a primary source and cannot be accepted. For these reasons, I don't think that their status as a Christian band is verifiable by Wikipedia's standards.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as Underoath, I don't think that one band member cursing in an interview is sufficient grounds to consider them secular and remove them, particularly when they and plenty of reliable sources identify them as a Christian band. I probably shouldn't have made that argument earlier, seeing as how I'm not a Christian and therefore not really in a position to judge them.

Regarding bands who used to be Christian and no longer are, I don't see a problem with that, provided we find someone way of marking them in the list. The problem with Blessthefall is that there doesn't seem to be evidence that they even used to be a Christian band. Otherwise, I wouldn't even be raising an objection.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't know what to think, it's really borderline. I'll let someone else come in and make a judgment.--3family6 (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
HM Magazine is a Christian publication. While I don't always agree with the acceptance of some bands (U2, mewithoutyou, and others), they do cover Blessthefall. Compare that with this tag and this search. Tags have content while searches will find the strings in any story or content on the site. I understand the arguments about profanity, etc., but even their article argues that they're a Christian band and there is some evidence of it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a HM Magazine listing alone (or a Cross Rhythms or JFH listing) is enough to make a definitive statement, but when combined with the Cross Rhythms coverage and the rather vague Allmusic statement, while I could disagree, there is enough to warrant them staying.--3family6 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. If none of those three sources on their own is solid enough to put in the article, how would all three be enough? In my opinion, the only alternative to an outright identification as "Christian" would be something like JFH or Plugged In Online, which generally dissect an artist's Christian lyrical content at length. The closest we have to that here is the Cross Rhythms review, and even that says nothing more of it than that their lyrics are not "overtly Christian". What is that supposed to mean? The lyrics of Linkin Park and Rage Against The Machine are also not "overtly Christian". Unless someone turns up a source such as described here, I don't think that there is enough evidence to consider them a Christian band, and therefore I think they should be removed.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Its a matter of weight. Even if all three are midly vague, the appearence of them on 3 christian ish websites warrent inclusion. Thats more than some bands have. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
And besides, as discussed already, the Cross Rhythms news post is very clear in calling them Christian, so we have two (possibly three) vague refs plus one solid one.--3family6 (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
The Cross Rhythms news post says nothing of the sort. It quotes one band member who professes Christianity and claims that one of their songs has a Christian meaning. The author of the post never once identifies the whole group, directly or indirectly, as a "Christian band", which is the very statement that we're attempting to source.
Also, being included on a Christian music site does not automatically mean the artist can be considered Christian. Otherwise, we could add Attack Attack! and The Word Alive just because both have profiles on Cross Rhythms. The problem is not that the sources are "mildly vague". What bothers me is that out of all the sources presented, the only that even comes close to attributing Christianity to the band as a whole is the AllMusic profile calling them "Christian-oriented", and 3family6 already admitted that that was vague. So unless someone finds another ref directly referring to them as a "Christian band", there inclusion on this list does not meet WP:V.
Just a recap of sources, so no one gets confused:
  • "Christian-oriented" from the allmusic bio (too vague)
  • Lyrics are not "overtly Christian" from the review of His Last Walk on CR (does not refer to the band as a whole.)
  • CR news report (does not refer to the whole band, and band member's quote is a primary source).
  • "We started out as a Christian band" from the interview (a primary source).
Unless someone comes up with something better than one of these, doesn't meet WP:V, should be removed.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I'm kind of ranting right now, I don't mean any ill will toward anyone, just trying to improve the article.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
On the List of Christian metal bands If they played christian music at any time in their career, inclusion is warrented. And I love both those above mentioned bands as a sidenote. That is at least 3 souces that add up to christian at a time. Again its a matter of weight. Find a source that says we aren't christian and never were and you'll have something. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
The only source I've seen for them even "once" having been a Christian band is this interview, which I already mentioned above. However, this interview is NOT a viable source because it fails two criteria of WP:NOR:
  • It is a WP:PRIMARY (since it is from a band member), which cannot be used as a source unless
  • It is published in a reliable source (not a Wordpress blog like this site); and unless
  • It is supported by a reliable secondary source (none of the secondary sources presented here do.)
For all of those reasons, this source, the only one presented so far which actually uses the term "Christian band" to refer to this band, is not reliable and cannot be used to source them. Therefore, I think that, unless anyone else comes up with a source that has not been presented here yet, the assertion that the band is or has ever been a Christian band, which is implied by including them on this list, is currently unsourced and should be removed.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
http://phoenix.metromix.com/music/article/new-member-new-outlook/895192/content DCcomicslover (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
I don't really think that's good enough. "Christian boys" is a good source for the guys in the band being Christian, but nothing in the article identifies the band as playing Christian music, the very criteria for them to be on this list.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Under WP:BURDEN, I think it would be a good idea to remove them from the list until a reliable source citing the band as playing Christian music can be found.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the whole term "Christian music" is vague and nebulous, and can mean that the music is performed by Christians as much as it is Christian in message, see Christian metal, Christian punk, and Christian rock (the last one has a lot of sourcing problems, so might not be the best). By the vague definitions of "Christian" music, if band members are Christian then the band is Christian (this kind of makes sense, unless it's a weird group like Kekal and doesn't have any members). A lot, and I mean a lot, of bands on this list, the Christian metal list, and the Christian rock list are listed because the members are Christian and are discussed in Christian media (like Kekal, even though it no longer has members). While I personally don't think that Blessthefall is Christian at all because of the evidence given, because independent sources mention a Christian faith among the members, and the members themselves said the band was Christian at one point (first party sources can be used to clarify if supported by third party sources), the band should be included, unless a third party source can be found that says the band is not Christian. I personally don't like the whole "Christian" industry thing of trying to suck in any artist that could be even remotely associated with Christianity regardless of lifestyle (mewithoutYou, Attack Attack!, Natasha Bedingfield, etc.), but my opinion is not reliable unless I get a music book published (which might happen someday, which would be cool.).--3family6 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Another point worth making is that wikipedia doesn't work based off common knowledge. Not saying this is the case here, but If a band claims to be christian, and sources claim it as christian, but they swear in their songs, drink, and pull a Bring Me the Horizon in concert and piss on people we still have to list them as christian, because that's what the source says. Yes we'll probably have to include a LENGTHY controversy section in the article : ), but if that's what the source says that's what must be put down. DCcomicslover (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
Oh gosh... Disturbing images but heres another interview. They claim christianity here.http://www.maristhegreat.com/interviews/2007/blessthefall/blessthefallinterview.html DCcomicslover (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
I saw that review, too. The problem is a) it's another first-party source, and there are no third-party sources backing it up, and b) I can't determine if the site is reliable, since it doesn't have the copyright at the bottom that most reliable sites have.
It's true that first-party sources can be used if backed up with reliable third-party sources; the problem is that there don't seem to be any third-party sources that confirm it.
Furthermore, this isn't a List of Punk Bands That Have Christian Members, it's the List of Christian punk bands. For a band to be included on the list, they have to have a source which directly identifies them as playing Christian music, which is defined by having Christian lyrics. The majority of the artists on this list have sources that examine the band's lyrical content with regards to the band's Christianity.
As I said before (though probably not clearly enough, for which I sincerely apologize), under WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence rests on the one who added the material, not the one who contests it. In other words, to put them back on, you need a source that they are Christian; I don't need to provide one that they're not to keep them off.
So far, we have some sources that (rather flimsily) confirm Christian elements in the band's music and among the members, the only sources identifying the band as a Christian band are interviews from the band members themselves claiming that the band "used to be" a Christian band, and we can't even use that because, as stated above, there are no third-party sources backing it up. It would be like adding them to the hip-hop list because the allmusic identifies hip-hop influences in their music and some of the band members claim to like hip-hop in interviews. Given this, I believe we should consider them a secular band and edit this page and others involving them accordingly.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
This is going to come off alot like an insult but I can't think of a better way to say it. The fact that they were here before with a source even if you deemed it unreliable. So technically you really need a source to take them off. I'll look for a reliable source but instant removal from them here and The Christian metal list because you think theyre unwarrented is just wrong. 16:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCcomicslover (talk • contribs)
http://heavymetal.about.com/od/b/fr/blessthefall-witness.htm DCcomicslover (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
Sorry, what is that about.com ref supposed to support? As much as I don't think they're Christian, this pretty much settles the argument (I was actually trying to find something that said they aren't Christian).--3family6 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, as DCcomics was trying to point out, WP:BURDEN only applies if the new addition has no source or a very poor source. But it doesn't matter now because of the Noisecreep ref I just gave above.--3family6 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
........... I spend 3 hours ref hunting and google misses that one..... All the ones I found, reliable and un showed christian, christian oriented and kinda christian one. Thank you for that 3family. I feel like I Know more about the band than I evwer needed to now... Oh and the ref stats them under the christian metal category. Written by a reliable author by the way. DCcomicslover (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
Looks like I'm beat, as long as you use that noisecreep ref in the article. I thought WP:BURDEN also applies if the source does not support the claim, but as 3family6 said, it doesn't matter now. I'll be on the lookout for sources that they aren't Christian, but for now I'll back down. Let's move on.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. You really have done a good job with this artical so far invisiboy. I like that you have strong opinions and care enough about the artical to butt heads with me over it. Yes this is a compliment. Not sarcasm. 23:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCcomicslover (talk • contribs)
Ditto that. It's discussions like this that make Wikipedia a better site.--3family6 (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys, that really means a lot to me. All this arguing gets kind of tiring, so it's nice to be reminded that it's all just professional and there's no hard feelings.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sleeping with Sirens

I'm removing them. I originally added them because I felt they were a Christian band (even though no sources confirmed it) and they had sources describing them as screamo. However, I've recently taken a look at the lyrics for their latest album and can safely say that they are not Christian. While three of the current five band members profess Christianity ([13][14][15]), the new album includes a "BS" (except spelled out) and lyrics that seem fairly hostile towards Christianity (i.e. "I'm lost/I don't want to be found" "You only do what you're told, you better hope that you're right/They say I'm a sinner, I'm not the only one/You want to point your finger, you better make a choice tonight") and some rather suggestive lyrics ("...Let my body show you lovin' like its never ever known"). In light of this, as well as the fact that I've seen no reliable source that identifies them as a Christian band, I'm removing them from the list, unless someone can turn up a reliable source for them being Christian.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for writing out the lyrics, since I know some of the editors on this list would probably rather not expose themselves to this type of thing, but I wanted to convey the seriousness of the situation.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Heheh I bought their new one last night. I never actually realized they were here. In their first cd they swear. Quite a bit if I remember correctly. I'd have to dig it up and listen. DCcomicslover (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover
  1. ^ whatever references you can find
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Christian_punk_bands/Archive_1&oldid=1088800224"