Jump to content

Talk:P.O.D./Archive 1

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

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

maru (talk) contribs 04:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--Ktdreyer 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.thesouthtow.com/
    • In P.O.D. on Mon Jul 17 14:18:53 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')
    • In P.O.D. on Thu Jul 27 00:25:45 2006, Socket Error: (-2, 'Name or service not known')

maru (talk) contribs 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--Ktdreyer 23:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

randomip

Hey, some unknown ip fella was editing and accidentally deleted the comments he thought he was answering. I don't feel like reconstructing it so check the history for more.--DjSamwise 04:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I was editing, cause I know the band personally, and someone modified it back to what it was before I started editing . I didn't delete the comments. Someone deleted them for me. So, basically they made a bias article about them that leaves questions unanswered. I modified it to answer any questions one might have while reading it. However, someone changed it back, thinking that I am not knowledgeable. Well, when you have been on 3 Street teams for P.O.D., an you have spent time with the band at Shows talking with them about there lives. You would then understand why I changed the page.

Your name

Why is your band named P.O.D? Is there a reason?

It stands for Payable On Death.

Payable on Death is an analogy of Christ's ultimate sacrifice for all the sin of mankind. In order that we would not have to pay the price ourselves, God gave us His only Son to pay for sin of His creation. He paid the price with His life, hence the term Payable On Death.

Just to clarify, this is the discussion page for an encyclopedic article about the band, not the band's website's message board. If you'd like to find the band's website, I'm sure it's listed at the bottom of the article, under 'External Links'.--MemeGeneScene 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Whow was that dumb ass? lol why the fuck would you come on here and ask THEM what the name stands for when this is clearly not their website or message board?...

Rasta influence?

Do you believe that Salassie was/is King of Kings, Jesus incarnate?

I believe taht Sonny flaat out denies any belief in Rasta. He claims Christ loud and clear.
Yes, but with evidence I have gathered from songs and many many other applicabilities, you wouldn't believe the stuff that relates to Rastafarianism.
You're right. We wouldn't. But you forget some of the Rastafarian beliefs are based on Christianity. No they aren't Rastafarians. IronCrow 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Truby gone

I think Truby shold be put into the former member area now, since he's even removed from their lineup on myspace

Could someone also replace the band image with one that has Marcos in it?--MemeGeneScene 17:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

preferrably the one they use as their myspace band image{{subst:image source|Image:1137893972 POD Testify.jpg)) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 00:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:1137893972 POD Testify.jpg


Vandalize much?

whoever fucked this page up-first-its funny-but your a half assed motherfucker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.195.126 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Genre on When angels and serpents dance

Any Sources that when angels and serprents dance is rapcore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.87.17 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Discography is messed up

im too lazy to fix it. PhilCosby 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Juru (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

Ok so we all know that all members of the band are christians and we all know they have some christian songs so somone should put somthing about their christianity like a section about how there music isn't christian but they are or somthing to let people know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.88.236 (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Who the **** is Diana Sear

Somebody wanna explain why he is in Marcos place in the article?-Sector311 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

POD IS NOT NU METAL, THEY ARE ALTERNATIVE ROCK

POD is an alternative based rock band. I don't think they are Nu Metal because Nu Metal carries a rather heavy sound to it, which POD lacks. Nu metal bands include; Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Slipknot, Korn, Ill Nino etc. POD shares none or very little similarities with these Nu Metal bands.


--- Thats quite funny, as p.O.d. are far heavier than Limp Bizkit or Linkin Park. which shows how little you know about the band Kronix 22:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.O.D.'s earlier music had a much more metal/rapcore sound. They have softened up a bit, but would still qualify as nu metal or even metal. It's plain to see that someone who thinks P.O.D. doesn't have (or never had) a 'rather heavy' sound must have been snoozing when Snuff the Punk hit the stores.--MemeGeneScene 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. I think the "biggest" difference in the music is the lyrics, other than that, the sounds generally follows the same set. IronCrow 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While both hard rock and nu metal are in the infobox, I added both terms to compromise about the general genre of the band to the intro paragraph. Supercodes 02:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. P.O.D. is NOT new metal. They "are" newmetal the same way Hoobastank, Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd "are". Having NM influences doesn't mean the band is NM. I've edited the article suppressing "Metals" and replacing by Crossover Rock, Christian Rock and Alternative Rock. Call them Christian Rock, but please don't call them a thing they definitely aren't. Robfbms 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

P.O.D. are heavier then Linkin park, They should be labeled Alternative METAL, Rapcore and Reggae rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtruth (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.O.D has only some musics considered heavier than Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory era. They are exceptions, instead of a rule. They are a little alternative metal (and other littles of other hard rock, reggae and rap rythyms) the same way bands like Staind and Linkin Park itself are. They may be labeled as "heavy" by so many Christian Metal fans, but they don't follow boldly a heavy or metal style. To the anonymous who didn't sign the reply above this, Staind is heavier than P.O.D but is not considered nu-metal by most fans. Robfbms (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider the track "Christ" from P.O.D. with it's extensive screaming, and hard metal sounds to be far more heavy than anything from Linkin Park. True, P.O.D.s sound isn't that wild anymore, but the same thing happened to Linkin Park or Limp Bizkit, too. So I find this argumentation invalid. --G4b (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Metal?

Why do you call them metal when I haven't ever heard screams, growls, Or heavy guitars in any of their songs so why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.161.30 (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you'd be excluding a whole lot of metal if you used those criteria to define it.

No they're not super heavy thrash or death metal but they are metal, listen to the song's 'Portrait,' 'southtown,' 'Addicted,' 'God forbid,' and 'Lie Down,' and 'Outkast' (espicaly the end of outKast hith super heavy blast-beat drumming and screaming) and Tell me they're their not metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtruth (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not a rule on P.O.D music, but exceptions. I can consider songs like some of the quoted ones as heavy, but can't see most P.O.D music from Payable 2003 on as it. Robfbms (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen to "Christ", it has two of these: heavy guitar sounds, screaming. So "any" is wrong. --G4b (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a very common and gross misconception that "heavy guitar, growls and screams" are metal. Many metal bands don't use these techniques, and many bands that do use them aren't metal in the least. Heavy metal music is about many things. Guitar sound and vocal style are two of them, but there's also the riffing style, the emphasis of the different instruments, the lyrical themes, song structure and composition, atmosphere, drum beats and basslines, use of solos, technicality of playing. All told, P.O.D. hardly meets any of these, and so the original creator of this particular section is correct, even if for the wrong reasons. Prophaniti (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rapcore

I've added Rapcore to the genre's because it is very obvious that they are and if their are any objections don't be afraid to speak up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.160.135 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I re-add Rapcore by any chance? I havent found a reliable source for it as of yet but its obviously Present in The Fundamental Elements of Southtown, Satellite and Testify 86.133.120.61 (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I certainly wouldn't argue about it myself. Prophaniti (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Then we are agreed then 86.133.120.61 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm seems to me Prophaniti that you've had a change of mind about my decision to re-add it, but i dont think personally rapcore needs a source at all though, its just basically a term to categorize bands that rap, and P.O.D. fit well into that genre particularly in the albums i mentioned above. so taking what i have said into consideration I will add it back in if its not a problem.. 86.150.228.63 (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I just feel it looks out of place and cluttered in amongst all the sourced genres. 5 genres does seem a bit much, unless the sources really suggest it. As it is there aren't any, so it's inclusion only really represents original research. Prophaniti (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus?

Why does it say in the years active part of the artical "Currently on hiatus"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.138.156 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Because they've been on Hiatus since December but they're coming back. I think a lot of it has to do with the relatively poor sales of W&SD but hopefully they'll release another album which will do better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.84.192 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Rasta

They make it clear they are a Christian band, but they deny that they are Rasta, not sure who added that. 74.5.110.177 (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They started out on the Christian concert circuit, I'm not sure if they still consider themselves to be a christian band, but they started out that way. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening line

The first paragraph of the article says that their an American Christian Rock band, I've changed it to Alternative Metal since that's their main genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.245.108 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

However, this is only your opinion. All wikipedia does is report what the sources say. There's enough sourcing of alternative metal to include it in the infobox, but nothing like enough to make it the lead. If any of the sourced genres were to go in there, it would have to be nu metal. However, I for one feel the more general "rock" is better, with a "Christian" part before it, because most of the sources see fit to make that distinction. Prophaniti (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay but I don't think Christian rock or Christian metal should be the lead since that band has stated several times their not a Christian rock band rather a mainstream band with Christian members and some Christian overtones. Maybe Christian Rock(early) should be put in the info box since their older songs were blatantly Christian but it shouldn't be in the main genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.245.104 (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A band itself is not a reliable source though: they are a first party, and therefore biased, source. We have several examples of band articles where the stated genre goes against what the band/band members say about themselves (Motorhead, Deep Purple, Korn). As things stand, many of our genre sources explicitly make the "christian" distinction, so it's worth noting. Prophaniti (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Christian distinction has to do mostly with the lyrical content not the style of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.245.104 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Why is P.O.D. always labeled 'Christian Metal' They make it very clear that they're not a Christian Band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.207.223 (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

How come P.O.D. get's Christian Metal in their info box and Demon Hunter doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.84.167 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They make it clear that they are a Christian band, they haven't denied it (not sure why the guy who psoted earlier said they have denied it muliple times, they haven't). Their stance against them being banned from some Christian Music outlets is an obvious indicator. However, they are NOT Rasta. 74.5.110.177 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
To make it more clear, they state here that their mission is for people to "see what a Christian is and being able to relate and not feel like they can't be one," which is the defining element of Christian music. http://www.familychristian.com/music/interviews/pod.asp In the same article they state that their lyrics are not about the issues, politics, or anything along those lines except "what He's done for [them]," and the interviewer calls their music a "ministry," to which they reply and affirm. Here they state the same. http://www.familychristian.com/music/interviews/pod.asp By "they" I am fereing to Noah "Wuv." Most third party sources refer to them as a Christian musical group. 74.5.110.177 (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they did denied it.[1][2][3][4][5] --Bartnikj (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ WUV. Rolling Stone, Dec. 14-21, 2000, p. 102
  2. ^ Wuv, P.O.D. Drum!, Sept.-Oct. 2001, p. 86
  3. ^ Wuv, P.O.D AP, Nov. 2001, p. 59
  4. ^ Spin Mag, October 2001, p. 88
  5. ^ www.movieline.com, 11.00.1999

Style Controversy II

I have a q: Is this Christian Rock, or just rock under a Christian Label? See, I'm not sure if I want them, 'cause I don't believe in any Religion...

The Wretched

Of coarse, I don't care if it's got like, very few elements. I mean, I love System of a Down, even though they got some mentions of God.

The Wretched
They're all Christians. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really give a damn if there christians, "to each his own" I say. It not like they go bash on anyone, like the damn Hardliner punks.

69.250.130.215 23:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They are definitly a Christian Band. I'm on their "Warriors" mailing list and It is clear to anyone with a mind of their own that they are Christian. If anyone dissagrees, leave me a message on my Talk Page. - Abishai | 11:25, 16 October 2006 (AEST)

They are a Christian band. They have played at the Cornerstone Festival, Christian revivals, and I am too on the "Warriors" mailing list that Abishai stated. Besides being played heavily on MTV, they were played heavily on Christian television shows...and this is from their Greatest Hits e-card page [1]:
They have also been part of "projects" like "Book of Shadows Blair Witch 2", "The Return of the Rock" or "Ozzfest". This should make them a Satanic Christian Metal Band ;) They also use Triquetra symbol that might be: a) clearly a christian symbol, b) definitely a non-christian symbol. Whether "a" or "b" was their intention it makes them a not-a-christian-but-a-regular band (Exodus 20:3-4). It's just a marketing decision. --Bartnikj (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

They are a Rock band with Christian members NOT a Christian Rock band. Here's an Excerpt from an interview with Sonny around the time of Satellite.

There�s a tendency in the press to describe you as a Christian rock band. Do you feel that's an unfair characterization? For instance, I saw an article today that referred to you as spiritual rap-rockers.

"Rap-rockers"--even that sounds hokey. So Christian rap-rockers, that sounds even more cheesy. But whatever. We don�t put ourselves in a box, we never have. When was Buddhist rap created? When was Krishna hardcore invented? There�s no such thing. I don�t know who created the title, but for us, we make rock 'n' roll music. We play music that we want to and [that] sounds good to us, and hopefully someone likes it.

But by the same token, we�re not ashamed in what we believe in. I�ll die for what I believe in. I�m open to talk to anybody about it, but I�m not going to be religious. I�m not here to force feed anyone any kind of false religion. I just happen to make music, you happen to hear what�s on my mind rather than if I was a plumber. If I was a plumber, would you label me a Christian plumber?

Why do you think people focus on that?

I�m clueless. When kids come out and say they�re quote-unquote "Christians"--"It�s so good to see a Christian band make it out there in the real world,"--it�s like, well, "Cool, I can go with that, I understand what you�re talking about." But then if you have journalists or some interviewers or DJs, they say it with kind of disrespect or a smart remark: "So, you guys are a Christian band, right?" You know what I mean? It�s like they�re giving the message that, "Hey, if anybody out there is not Christian, then these guys aren�t for you, because they�re Christian, so they don�t make music for you." It�s like, we make music for everybody.

And at the same time, even a band like U2, people tried to close them in to a box in their early years, and they broke out of it. So, if we have to make moves to break out of that, it�s cool. Now, U2 is one of the baddest bands in the friggin� world. They have a spiritual background, and they�re one of the baddest rock bands that ever lived.

With P.O.D., it�s undeniable. Everyone knows we�re Christian. Now listen to the dang record and tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtruth (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian Music

To most P.O.D. is known as a Christian band.

P.O.D. use the trinity symbol, which is CLEARLY forbidden in the Bible. the trinity symbol is three inter-woven "6"s which

adds up to the mark of the beast "666"

P.O.D. also very cleverly edited a lot of Rastafarianism into their music. Words like JAH (the Rastafarians name for God) and ZION (Ethiopia in Africa, the Rastafarians holy land) are very common in their music.

As a Christian, as yourself. Which God are you worshiping? God or Jah? God or Heavy Metal Rock music?

Oh, great. Dial-the-Truth Ministries got here.
Though the trinity symbol, P.O.D.'s logo, was originally a pagan symbol, it has been claimed by Christians as the Holy Trinity, not the mark of the beast.
P.O.D. uses words like "Jah" because according to Sonny those are words their audience relates to. It draws them in. After Bad Brains exploded, atheist rock lovers don't care if they're listening to music which sings praises to "Jah," but when they find out which Jah P.O.D. is singing praises to, God the Father, the one true God, that's when they're touched by their message.
I am worshiping Jah. The Jah of Psalm 68:4. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Umm... How is a 'P.O.D. = devil worshipping'(give me a break) rant relevant to the article? Unless, of course, you want a criticism section describing such controversies. Somehow, I doubt it.--MemeGeneScene 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to actually research to back up what you're saying big chief. In old testament there were many references to the many names of God. "Jah" could be a reference not to Rastafarianism, but to Jehovah, one of the names of God.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.152.104 (talk • contribs)

Erm..... Zion is also the name of the Jewish homeland, hence the Zionist movement. And since Jesus was Jewish and there are numerous mentions of Zion in the Bible, i think it is very relevant to Christianity and Christian Metal 82.18.226.41 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Jah is a reference to "hallelujah". In hebrew, i believe, hallelujah means "praise God" and the last 3 letters in that word is Jah and IS what God means in hebrew. If you want to read about their christianity, go to www.warriorklan.com There is alot better explanations at that site

1. Jah means God. Just as Jehovah means God, and just as Christ means God (to Christians). 2. Zion is the Jewish holy land and the name of the Rasta holy land (some part of Ethiopia, right? Don't hold me on that). So what? IronCrow 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


The trinity symbol is and old Christian Celtic symbol and is not three 6's woven together —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtruth (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

- "P.O.D. use the trinity symbol, which is CLEARLY forbidden in the Bible. the trinity symbol is three inter-woven "6"s whichadds up to the mark of the beast "666" Assuming that it were 3 6's...which it isn't...how on Earth is that "clear?" Should we cut the number 666 out of everything? If there are 666 dollars given at an offering should we burn one? If I'm member 666 or a church should I be treated like a troublemaker? Come on.

How is the Trinity symbol forbidden in the Bible. It represents the Holy Trinity (The Father, The Son (Jesus), and The Holy Spirit). There are Bibles that have the Trinity symbol on them. It is a symbol of Christianity, not of Satanism and it is not three 6's woven together, but it is three ovals overlapping each other. And by the way, POD IS DEFFINATLY A CHRISTIAN ROCK/METAL BAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Mr. Comedian (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The one that uses Trinity symbol is New King James Version that is very controversial because of it's New Age style.[1] --Bartnikj (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Jah and Zion are in the Bible in the original languages not Rastafarian..geesh.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.237.119 (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Terry Watkins, The New King James Version:Counterfeit

"Payable on Death is an American Christian metal band"

That needs to be changed to "Payable on death are an American rock band" since it implies christian metal is the only genre they play when they also play rap metal and nu metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The info box lists all of the genres and the lede sentence only lists the most important one: the one that covers the others. Check out some articles of other bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

NOT A CHRISTIAN BAND

this was really wired what i found but it could be true [1] POD might be of the devil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.176.204 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I read that site. It's a bunch of crud did you also read the other stuff on that site? it's says DC talk is evil and Jars Of Clay too.

P.O.D. are great people don't listen to that site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildtruth (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Profanity in speech" is a sign of "non-christianism". Martin Luther who gave us the first translated vulgar bible and is responsible for every protestant movement indirectly, had a very profane way of speaking. And didn't Jesus and Paul talk about how often we should judge people? I think, they said: "never". So much about that site. --G4b (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

P.O.D Are christian, so are DC Talk, that site is up its on ass --Casket56 (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If P.O.D. have used Profanity in speech in the past, it's apparently because they were new Christians. Once Somebody becomes a Christian, he doesn't suddenly lose all of his sinful habits (even Christians who have been Christians for many years still have sinful habits, just hopefully not as bad), and in this article on P.O.D., the lead singer was a NEW Christian, and he co-founded the band to keep his mind straight. If they ever made any sinful choices (remember that we all make sinful choices in our life because we're sinners) it's because P.O.D. were new Christians, so you couldn't expect them to suddenly stop their sinful habits a Christian normally doesn't have, such as using Profanity in their speech. Also, the song "Satellite" is a song a non-Christian wouldn't understand, and the song has a very spiritual meaning.[2]JSMartialArtist (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Just Because they use profanity doesnt make them any less christians, Most people dont understand this. We all do period. what makes them different is they seek to be right with their lord when they sin.

I know this thread is a bit old but I think that being a Christian doesn't make your band's music Christian. Plus a quote from an interview on movieline.com:
Q: Are you or are you not a Christian band?
A: We’re not, but we do believe in Jesus. (www.movieline.com, 11.00.1999)
And a reference.[3]

Bartnikj (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

However there is a great deal of media that consider them to be Christian because of their faith and the message of their lyrics. That's why they're listed as a Christian metal band. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
To put it another way, if a band said that they were a jazz band because they didn't think they were a jazz band but reviewers labelled them as a jazz band, what would that make them? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be somehow confusing when it's P.O.D. Sometimes their lyrics refers to rastafarianism ("Set Your Eyes To Zion" or "Tribal") but they're not a rastametal band... or whatever should it be called. They often appear on musical projects with "anti-christian" bands (Marilyn Manson on "Book of Shadows Blair Witch 2"). And if it's hard to tell if a band is christian, not-christian or even anti-christian should it be mentioned on Wikipedia that way it is now? IMO it should make a separate section with "controversy" word in it. --Bartnikj (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
They are not a christian band because the members are christians. It's about the music, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.119.11.4 (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/pod_exposed.htm
  2. ^ http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Satellite-lyrics-P-O-D/2DD0056AD7A0153448256AD60028A008
  3. ^ "Dr. Terry Watkins, Th.D. on P.O.D.

Drummer

Someone keeps adding a touring drummer to the line-up. Wuv Bernardo has never been away from his position as the drummer for this band. The gap between 05 and 2010, needs to be corrected. I see someone has tried that multiple times, but it keeps getting changed back. There has only ever been one drummer. They did tour with an additional percussionist for a year or so, but he was in no way a replacement for Wuv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on P.O.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Studio Albums

I've tried to make the change as to the number of major label studio albums the band has released, but it keeps getting changed back. It's right there in the discography section, all one has to do is count. The first 2 albums were indie albums, which is mentioned correctly, but the site goes on to say they've released 6 major label albums. There are 7 of them. From "Southtown" on, they've all been on major labels. I'm not sure why Wiki wants to keep reverting this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A studio album is one recorded in a studio as opposed to EPs which are not albums and live recordings and compilations. All one has to do is count
  1. Snuff the Punk - Rescue
  2. Brown - Rescue
  3. The Fundamental Elements of Southtown - Atlantic
  4. Satellite - Atlantic
  5. Payable on Death - Atlantic
  6. Testify - Atlantic
  7. When Angels & Serpents Dance - INO, Columbia
  8. Murdered Love - Razor & Tie
  9. SoCal Sessions - Universal, T-Boy
  10. The Awakening - Universal, T-Boy
I would argue the term "major label" is unnecessary because that term is not well-defined. 15:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I have made the change. Lets hope, if changed, they see the message and either fix the discography page, let the edit stand or come here and join the discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This looks good, but I don't think SoCal Sessions actually counts, since it's a compilation. But even without it, the number should be 7. Thanks for looking into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UtahCountryBoy (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@UtahCountryBoy: It's not a compilation album. Compilations are collections of previously recorded works. These were all new recordings of previously written works. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure how this album should be classified. AllMusic lists it as a studio album, and P.O.D. is maintained and updated by that site fairly frequently.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Religious themes

I reverted this addition because much was WP:OR, with links to primary sources (bible verses and discussions about Rastafarianism, etc.) and one was referenced to a wiki. Should it be restored or at least some of it salvaged? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

OP's RESPONSE: If you want to delete the KJV Bible citations, fine; they're not essential to the main point. The other objections you make have less force. All the "discussions about Rastafarianism" cited in the addition are secondary, not primary. A primary source for Rastafari would be e.g. the Rasta's modified Bible; writings by an outside observer about Rastafari, as are all the Rasta references I made, are by definition secondary.
Further, when I wrote this, I followed standard Wikipedia practice when discussing music, in which citing pieces of music as a source for a factual statement about said music is widely considered valid and appropriate. For example, see one of the editors of the Neoclassical metal page, who admonishes contributors to "cite a song when you say something like 'neo-classical pieces often feature X'. It surely wouldnt be that hard to find some neo-classical song which quotes Vivaldi or whatever. A source in this context doesnt [sic] have to be an academic paper, it can be a piece of music."
Let's repeat that last statment: "A source in this context doesnt have to be an academic paper, it can be a piece of music." And if you don't want to take the Neoclassical Metal editor's word for that, then head on over to the highly academic Wikipedia music-theory pages. See, for example, the page on the Major 6th chord, which states, "Examples that use the major 6th chord include the opening of the chorus of "Skylark" by Johnny Mercer and Hoagy Carmichael, and "Moonlight in Vermont" by John Blackburn and Karl Suessdorf." I simply followed the lead of these music-theory pages when I named various P.O.D. songs that use reggae strumming patterns and vocal styles.
Or check out the page for the Dominant seventh chord, where cited sources include Beethoven's Piano Sonata in B-flat major, Op. 22; Charlie Parker's "Au Privave"; Monteverdi's "Lasciatemi Morire"; and Chopin's Mazurka in F Minor, op. 68, no. 4. I am doing exactly the same thing, except with lyrics rather than harmony, when I cite P.O.D. lyrics that show Rasta influence.
The exact degree of influence held by Christianity vs. Rastafari in P.O.D.'s writing is going to be a matter of opinion and has no place on this page. What does--and indeed must--have a place on this page is the fact that some Rastafari influence is definitely present in P.O.D.'s music. To that extent, the evidence is irrefutable, allowing no leeway whatsoever for interpretation, and the Wikipedia page has a clear responsibility to delineate that fact. If you don't quite like the way I did it, then by all means place "citation needed" markers by statements that bother you--but it definitely needs to be there.50.38.192.57 (talk) 10:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it's correct. You can't appeal to unreferenced content, or other original research (OR, not OP) to state that this original research can be in-place. There are reggae influences on the music, but I can't add that to the article based on my own ears. An expert may say that it's soca instead. To the extent that reggae draws on Rastafarian and Christian themes, may be all that we are seeing in: the incorporation of a musical style's themes. They may not be independently incorporated. To
Then there's the bold statement that it's "critics" who label them as Christian music. There's no proof of that. It could just be that they are part of the industry. "Rock the Party (Off the Hook)" won the Short Form Music Video of the Year Dove Award in 2001 and "Boom" won the Hard Music Recorded Song of the Year Dove Award in 2003 (see http://doveawards.com/awards/past-winners/ and search for P.O.D.).
Then there's poor writing style. Absolute terms like "unambiguous" and "uniquely" are WP:PEACOCK terms while "probably not coincidental" is a WP:WEASEL phrase.
So overall, the problem is that there is no credible source to back-up the claims you're making. That does not mean that what you're writing is wrong, only unsourced and so original research. If you can find a WP:reliable source to back some of these claims up, we could create a religious themes section, and support the statements with those sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're getting at. Upon reflection, then, I would argue for retaining just a brief, neutral statement about possible (not definite) Rasta influence, and then follow that with the table I furnished that contains the song quotations. We would therefore retain just the sentences about the key Rasta phrases and Haile Selassie's divinity. Then remove the "uniquely" from the first of those sentences (although I want to defend myself here against the charge of "poor writing style" because in this context, "uniquely" is not being used in the manner described on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEACOCK ; rather, it is a simple statement of fact. Rastafari is the only religious movement on the planet that uses "I and I". "Unique" as applied here is thus merely true. Further reading I've done on the web over the past couple of days indicates that "Jah" may be a bit more widespread, but not "I and I". No one uses that except Rasta. So with regard to "I and I", at any rate, it's not that I'm being a poor writer--I'm just being right. But the point is too nitpicky to be worth pursuing further.)
So once we remove "uniquely", and add in the bit about Haile Selassie, we would be left with something like the following...
"The phrases 'Jah' and 'I and I', hallmarks of worship in Rastafari, are found in various P.O.D. songs. One of their compositions also alludes to a central tenet of Rastafari, the divine kingship of the last Ethiopian emperor, Haile Selassie. These lyrical gestures (for which see table below) may indicate some Rasta influence on the band's songwriting."
...and then would follow the table (into which would have to be added the song naming Haile Selassie).
Now, why would this be a valid Wikipedia addition, whereas the previous version wasn't?
I would argue that my proposed revision is permissible based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources when it says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." There is no "specialized knowledge" involved in being aware that "Jah" and "I and I" are used specifically by Rasta, nor that the main distinguishing tenet of Rastafari is Haile Selassie's divinity; since Bob Marley, these very basic bits of knowledge about Rastafari have become widespread. The links to the Wikipedia Rastafari page will bring anyone up to speed who doesn't happen to know it already for some reason--and there will always be a few people who don't know something that most others do--but that very source argues for the "educated person" category here. It's the same rule we all learned in grammar school about citing our sources in term papers: if you can find it in an encyclopedia, you don't have to cite it because it is assumed to be common knowledge, not specialized knowledge, and thus doesn't need to be sourced.
Given that most educated people will know these basic facts about Rastafari, when they read the lyrics I quote in the table, the possibility of Rasta influence is simply obvious and therefore falls into the category of "verifi[able] by any educated person".
So my argument for retaining this revised contribution hinges on your judgement of whether knowledge of these Rasta hallmarks is sufficiently widespread to be adjudged "common". As I've indicated, I think it is, but you may disagree. If you do, however, you must be consistent and also delete a currently standing portion of this page that depends on exactly analogous knowledge of Christian theology, which, given markedly declining church attendance over the past forty years or so, cannot be any more widespread than barebones knowledge about Rasta (again, common because of Bob Marley): the first two sentences of the Style and influences topic. That topic cites only a single source, the band bio at Allmusic, and if you follow that source you will find that it says only that the band are born-again Christians. That's it. It does not support the reason for the band's name provided in the first two sentences of this topic. It makes no mention whatsoever of any of the specific theological notions adduced in those sentences. The sentences on the Wikipedia page do provide Wikipedia links to the Christian theological doctrines, but this is done for exactly the same reason that I provide links to the Rastafari page for "Jah" and "I and I": the Style and influences links bring people up to speed who aren't familiar with those doctrines for some reason--as, inevitably, some people won't be. Or maybe most? Me, I'm quite content to acknowledge that knowledge of those doctrines may be widespread enough to be adjudged generally "common". In that case, these two sentences belong to the same category as the basic Rasta knowledge at issue in my proposed revision; if so, then both my newly revised contribution and these two sentences may be allowed to stand. But if my contribution doesn't pass muster, neither do these two sentences, and they also need to be jettisoned. If the "citation needed" markup is what has saved them thus far, then it should save my revised addition also. So whatever you do, you'll need to be consistent in your treatment of both issues.
Anyhow, this has been an interesting ride. While the issues are clear from a theological point of view, the more that I think about it, the more it seems that the issues may not be so clear-cut from the band's point of view. I'm a big reggae fan, and all my time as a P.O.D. listener I have been well aware of the reggae and Rasta presence in their tunes since Burn. But I have been assuming that someone in the band converted to Rastafari during Burn's recording (thus the reggae jam and the reference to Babylon in one song on that release), and that accounts for the Rasta material. However, as I read your comments, the more I think about it--and especially with POD's Dove awards, which are NOT mentioned here in the article, and certainly should be--it may well be that the band is just theologically confused. Christian theology absolutely rejects Haile Selassie's divinity, which the band explicitly supports in the song I cite to that effect, and no mainstream Christian denomination uses the hallmark Rasta phrases I cite--and there are good theological reasons for that. However, because some (though not all) Rasta honor Christ, it is easy to see how a rock band not much interested in--and perhaps not very well informed about--theological strictness could simply amalgamate Rasta ideas into their work without worrying about, or even being aware of, the niceties. Though it is worth noting that such a procedure still, of course, indicates Rasta influence at certain level.
And that brings me to my final point. I don't have time to work on this further, so if you don't think that the solution I outline above is valid, it might die here. That would be unfortunate: someone else should take up this issue. It's something that the Wikipedia page really has a responsibility to mention one way or another, because the presence of Rasta influence runs contrary to born-again evangelical Christian theology, and according to footnote 10 (the Wilson MacKenzie article), this band comprises born-agains. And no evangelical minister, of any stripe, would condone the Rasta approach to the Bible. Whether POD knows what they're doing or not, the theological issues make Rasta motifs in the lyrics of an avowed born-again band an interesting and important subject, a topic that clearly belongs on this page.
The use of "Jah" is not exclusive to Rastafarianism. Feel free to read how it's used in Hebrew (יהּ) and therefore English translations. ironically, there's a music section that discusses its use in Reggae music, and even comments P.O.D.'s use of it.
I won't stand in the way of your addition, but would like other editors to comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
> The use of "Jah" is not exclusive to Rastafarianism
As I indicated in my previous post, I've realized that--but simultaneously confirmed that "I and I" is definitely exclusive. Either way, both are certainly "hallmarks of Rastafari", which is as far as my proposed addition goes. So as it currently stands the wording is accurate. And BTW, most Rasta tend to find "Rastafarianism" offensive, which is why I don't use the term. I'm not Rasta--just trying to give others the same respect I'd like to be accorded when they're talking about me.
> I won't stand in the way of your addition, but would like other editors to comment.
Fair enough. Anyone else?
Sandoval said that the influence of Rasta is that the band plays reggae (see here). A JfH review briefly mentions that the band has supposed Rasta roots, but really have Christian message. That's all that a quick Google Search found.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, after a month, only 3family6 has responded, so presumably nobody else has any comments to make.
> Sandoval said that the influence of Rasta is
> that the band plays reggae
Not quite. A careful read reveals that what he actually says there is simply that he's a "reggae nut"--nothing more, and nothing at all about Rasta influence on the band's general orientation. The closest he gets is to say that they decided to do a collaboration with a reggae artist ("Roots in Stereo" on Testify), and in connection with that project Sandoval says, "reggae . . . is from Rastafarianism". In context, you'll see that he's merely making the point that the band was acting ecumenically when working with the reggae artist on this particular song. Sandoval was not making a comment that is clearly applicable to the band's overall thematic approach. It might be possible to make an argument that his comment should be read that way, but that would be an original-research interpretive argument, and we're trying to stay away from that.

So how about this:

"The phrases 'Jah' and 'I and I', hallmarks of worship in Rastafari, are found in various P.O.D. songs. One of their compositions also alludes to a central tenet of Rastafari, the divine kingship of the last Ethiopian emperor, Haile Selassie. These lyrical gestures (for which see table below) may indicate some Rasta influence on the band's songwriting, although at least one Christian source briefly disputes this possibility.[note to jHF review] The band itself has not issued a public statement on this issue, although vocalist Sonny Sandoval has described himself as a 'reggae nut' and noted that 'reggae . . . is from Rastafarianism'. [footnote to Beliefnet interview]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.237.95 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on P.O.D.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Circles (P.O.D. album)

Support split - Circles and its lead single have been discussed in several articles. The album should therefore have its own article at Circles (P.O.D. album). Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I just deleted the content from here because the redirect will likely be notable at some point, but for now, it's WP:TOOSOON. We'll see a few reviews by Monday I'm sure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, since you changed the redirect to point to the band's discography, it makes even less sense to have content in here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:P.O.D./Archive_1&oldid=1167330848"