Talk:Thousand Foot Krutch/Archives/2014 1

This is a Call

I thought that was their best single (As in airplay). Its still being played here in Holland, Mi--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NU Metal or what?

This is About the band Just being Hard Rock or add to the Genre Nu Metal

Just hard rock and in some cases metal but not NU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) User:Skateremorocker

Who Wrote the Section on the Name?

It sounds like my friend Laura who is obsessed with this band.

X Worship 2006

One may want to add to this article the fact that this band has a song on this compilation cd. -EdGl 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GO FOR IT!!Bacl-presby 00:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. -EdGl 03:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how many others they're on, but I know their song Rawkfist was on X: 2004. There might even be others out there as well. --Az 03:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Everyone Like Me" was on X 2005, "Move" was on X 2006, and "Absolute" was on X 2007. Also, I have never heard of X Worship 2006, but I have heard of, and own, X Worship, which has "Breath You In". Saksjn 12:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Move" was on the Parachute 2007 and Absolute was the Parachute 2006 record. 9:06, 24th August 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116Rebel (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't forget that "Bounce" was on X 2003. --JY23 (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Aplin

I know Jamie Aplin is the touring guitarist for TFK, but has he ever officially been mentioned as the full-time guitarist? I know I might be splitting hairs here, but on every TFK disc, Trevor has gotten the credit for guitars. Should we change Jamie's stature in the band? Roofi's Publicist 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He always gets back-up gutiarist credits on the songs, while whoever else is with the band at the time gets the lead. In concert, he only sings. Saksjn 12:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about a song

I can't for the life of me figure out the name of this song. The site I found it at said it was Phenomenon by Thousand Foot Krutch. I have that song, and this isn't it. I've looked up lyrics for their songs at WikiLyrics, but it's not there. It goes something like this:

{{Lyrics are COPYVIO. Removed by Dan, the CowMan 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)}}

Can anyone tell me what this song is? --RockMaster 02:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Google reveals that it is "Animal I Have Become" by Three Days Grace. Dan, the CowMan 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• That would explain a lot. Thanks!--RockMaster 00:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Rude Awakening (A.K.A. Home)

TFK recorded a song called Rude Awakening (Since called Home, here on the internet) and distributed 100 copies of it on CD. This website has the story on the song. How should we go about adding this to the wiki article?

Here is the text from the above site:

E-mail from Trevor McNevan, lead vocalist of Thousand Foot Krutch, to another TFK fan and TFK fan site webmaster:

"'Home' is actually called 'Rude Awakening'(I'm not sure why someone called it 'home' on the net), and is a song I wrote and recorded by myself. It's just a demo version(still ruff), but I have fun writing a lot of my own stuff on the side. This song was inspired by Cassey Bernall, the girl who was shot and killed in the Columbine high school shootings. She stood up for what she believed in, and wasn't afraid to die for it. That really spoke to me, would you and I stand up for God if it meant death? It's a deep question. A question that can only be truly answered by a 'History Maker'. I hope you dig it man. If it's alright, can you pass this on to anyone who's heard the song to give them a little background on it? Thanks again, "

Trev(vocalist/songwriter for TFK)

"I found out a little more about the song.

Some of it was already posted here about Trevor being inspired by the Columbine shooting, but there is more.

They were not allowed to play the song when they were in Columbine last year (understandaby, at the time the students there were very sensitive to the issue) so instead they burned 100 copies onto cds and were allowed to sell them at the show.

All 100 copies were sold.

There will NOT be any more official versions of these discs made. they were made with out the permission of the record company (Who technically owns all TFK recordings made while under contract). If you have one of these discs, it is even more rare than Oddball or Thats What People Do."

Kerry (Official Thousand Foot Krutch Site Web Design)

Any help on this would be greatly appreaciated ColdShoulder 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rawkist

I've created a stub on Rawkfist and you guys should take a look. Saksjn 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Flame In All Of us

I tried to add a picture but all I could do is add a link to the picture, could some-one help

Fair use rationale for Image:02 TFK Photo 2.jpg

Image:02 TFK Photo 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Free images can be taken from the official TFK ecards. The images are available to the public for use as desktop wallpapers, so I would assume that using them as a promotional image is fully legal under the fair use rationale.

Jcpizzadude 19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Why do people constantly want to make sure this band is labled "christian rock" I see nothing on their website, myspace, purevolume, or lyrics that imply a direct association with "christian music" They are not marketed as such either, even though there are bands associated with CCM on tooth and nail, many are just simply bands, I see no evidence as to why TFK, isn't simply just a band as well. Logically isn't christianity a faith, not a genre, and regardless of weather or not the band members claim to be christians, why would the type of music be labled different because of the band member's spirituality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.192.24 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the lyrics to supafly, unbelievable, this is a call and small town - all of those say Jesus or christ. Last words says the word god and also points out "Life is more than just a game you're playing"

Apart from that there was something on a website where the new album was mentioned that the name of god continues to influence the groups music, so many songs must be focused on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

also, they have gotten number ones like "Absolute" on christianrock.net, and other singles charting there.

They are playing a teen christian concert.

Uh... someone who doesnt' believe TFK is a Christian Band... oh brother... that's like saying Slayer isn't a metal band... Oh well, here goes. 1. They are distributed in the Christian market and have been since they started. Infact, they started ONLY in the Christian market to begin with. 2. Christian music is a genre, based off lyrics, yes. Just like Emo is a genre, based of lyrics (emo can be hardcore, post-hadcore, screamo, etc). 3. They thank Christ/God foremost in their thank you's. 4. "If you're real then take me Jesus" ring a bell? The lyrics make it so. 5. They have said they are. You seriously must have hardly ever listened to these guys to not think they are a Christian band. IronCrow 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow I can't belive there is some small debate about their Christianity just listen to their song Breath you in its so obvious and I went to a concert with only Christian bands and it was in a church and at the concert they made it pretty clear.

The point the original poster was making is that most of their songs have nothing to do with Christianity. Some do, perhaps - from their old album mind you - but for the most part their lyrics have absolutely nothing to do with christianity. It's a pity they have to be market themselves as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.64.237 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Questioning their Christian Rock Heritage is simply the most ignorant thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. --Teacherbrock (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for 'Christian rock' you can put it in the infobox, but not in lead sentence. The vast majority of sources mention nothing of their Christianity, most say simply rock etc. The lead must be neutral, and Christian____ is not neutral. Landon1980 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence must be true and neutral, to call them simply a rock band in untrue. The lead box for Christianity must include Christ, so to a christian band must include Christ. Being a Christian Rock band isn't about neutrality it is about what it is, a Genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teacherbrock (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The sources for the most part ignore their Christianity, and call them rapcore, rock, etc. Rock is the most neutral, all the others are subgenres. If you can find a reliable source for Christian rock you may put it in the infobox, but not the lead. Landon1980 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm assumong good faith here, my guess is you simply are not aware or have a misunderstanding of policy. Out of politeness I'll not revert your last edit, but someone will. This is an issue on nearly all music related articles, the lead sentence is always neutral, not just sometimes. When only one or two (if any) call them 'Christian rock' and all of our sources refer to them in other terms, adding the word Christian to the lead demonstrates a clear bias and is not allowed. If they are truly a Christian rock band find a sourc and put it in the infobox, Christian rock is a form of rock. Landon1980 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rapcor

These guys are not rapcore, they past two albums haven't been, so if people insist on having the genre put up, I insist in brackets we put (earlier albums) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal

I don't think NU metal should be on the genre list, since only phenomenom deserves that label so saying early wouldnt be properly correct. It wouldn't make sense to put phenomenom in brackets either, so i'm removing it from the genres.

MATT 14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt 14 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

TFK Template

There should be a Template:ThousandFootKrutch, How do you make one of those, like the Template:RelientK one?

DVD

Why is it not said that The art of breaking album has a DVD on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.47 (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous genres

I understand most genres on the front page but then you have silly ones that are obviously not right like christcore (christian hardcore) and christian metal, until these two can be sourced i'm removing them both.

What's carzy about Christian hardcore its in many of their songs like Hand grenades Falls apart Move and The art of breaking.

Although Christian metal is ridiculous.

well the art of breaking and move and falls apart has no hardcore. i suppose inhuman and slow bleed has some, but if anything its an influence, not one of their genres. for example some bands are influenced by classical music, but it is not always one of their music genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pessimistemo32 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true but still I think they are Christian hardcore even if its only two or three songs we understand.

Ok, so rise against have 2 or 3 acoustic songs recorded in their career, is it acceptable to put acoustic rock on their genres? what do you think? im using this as a comparison for the TFK article, or how about the starting line? can we label them acoustic rock for their short EP they made of acoustic songs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Fine your right about that but it says Hard rock and their is no Christian hard rock genre in wikipedia so I write Christian hardcore and if you remove that then just remove Hard rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.66.220 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Rapcore that's only in one album and its only a few songs and its still here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.155.141 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

why do people keep on adding really stupid genres to the page like Heavy metal or Christian Metal, and also remember only phenomenom falls under NU metal, the early stuff was rapcore/christian rock. At least source them then I won't take any genres off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrice34 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? heavy metal, they are a hard rock/heavy metal band. and christian metal, there more christian metal than christian rock. And what do you mean only phenomenon falls under nu metal. what about set it off? thats way more nu metal than phenomenon. the only nu metal song in phenomenon is bounce. your the rediculous one, not these genres. In fact see what i got coming in next --Mr. Comedian (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well heavy metal has growling screamed vocals, do TFK? no, they are hard rock. How can you say Set if off is nu metal, its rap/rock songs like "All the way live" "supafly" "rhime animal" and "unbelievable" then you get a good rock song like "everyone like me" or a ballad like "sweet unknown" or "small town" or the rawk song "the alternative song" on phenomenom you get less rap, more heavy riffs and Korn influence, the prominent band of new metal. Most songs on Phenomenom have heavy riffs, no chugging or screamings, yet the riffs have some sort of metal feel, must be NU metal. As for them being a christian metal band, they call themselves rock, and anyway the riffs and vocals arent exactly metal, and between the two latest albums there are many softer slower songs far removed from anything metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

apart from that more pre phenomenom songs like Moment of the day and when in doubt have nothing to do with nu metal either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

heavy metal doesnt have screaming growling vocals, screamo does, theres a difference. stryper is a christian metal band and they dont scream and/or growl. underoath is a christian screamo band and they do scream and growl. tfk is hard rock/heavy metal. and nu metal is rap metal --Mr. Comedian (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay so I toke out that ridiclous users things because now i relized I was the one being a little ridiculous. However put christian hardcore was deffinatly wrong. and i understand more clearly now what you guys are saying. I thought that nu metal was rap metal but now i relized that theres a difference. I'm sorry for the way i responded. But i still do think that songs such as rawkfist, ordinary, and puppet are heavy metal. but songs such as move, everyone like me, and the flame in all of us are hard rock. then they have really soft songs like brother john is pop punk and this is a call is acoustic rock. I'd say there main genre is Christian Rock and then hard rock. I'm very sorry for being a complete idiot. I relized that the way I responded was mean. Once Again, I am very sorry. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC) They are Christian hardcore how can you not see that! Just listen to almost every song in The art of breaking and Falls apart and I don't know anymore songs by them but when i do you'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.235.118 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess they are Christian Hardcore. But I still say that Rawkfist is a Christian Metal song--Mr. Comedian (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Last CD

I heard rumors that the flame in all of us is there last cd. thats what dudes are saying on youtube. if these rumors are true. the bands active years would be 1997-2007. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not their last album. Who said that it was I went to a concert in november and that album was released in the summer so their not done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.33.172 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

well some of the comments on youtube say that it is there last album but hey dont beleive evreything you read on the internet --Mr. Comedian (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

i hav also had a suspicion tho that the last track on the flame, 'The Last Song' may be what its title implies. do u hav a link 2 the videos out of curiousity? Jcpizzadude (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uF_YTSP6cvw comment is on page 7, although it may change by the time you check so if you dont see it keep looking --Mr. Comedian (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't belive anything you hear about them on the web unless its from Trevor mcneven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.235.86 (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

good point dude --Mr. Comedian (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

true...they may say something about it on tour w/skillet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcpizzadude (talk • contribs) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe --Mr. Comedian (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok heres some things to consider

They're active years would be 1997-2008 if they broke up now techically. All american rejects did a song called "the last song" but they are still going and have had albums since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So basicly nobody thinks they have broken up. and here's something else to thing about. If they broke up then they would have said something and their would be a goodby tour most likely and I was at a concert and they didn't say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.146.211 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not christian hardcore

christian hardcore is not one of the genres. that is a form of metalcore as the article will state if you read it, and is what you'd call "no innocent victim" plus hardcore is hardcore punk it doesnt mean heavy music or anything like that, and tfk have very little to do with punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrice34 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian metal

Why does it say they are Christian metal or Nu metal or anything of that nature? They have no songs containing Screams, Growls, Metal guitars or anything involving metal! If they where at all considered metal they would have to be Unblack metal due to their lighter guitars and screams with no growl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.38 (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And they are not NU metal!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.146.158 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, no? Metal does not have contain growls to be Metal, and they wouldn't be Unblack because they don't scream...at all...Nu metal is accurate for their earlier stuff, but they're more Alternative Rock nowadays...GreenRunner0 21:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Christian rock

I just edited the article because TFK are a Christian rock band not a Christian Rock band, the latter is suggesting they are just christians in a rock band, but in truth they are a band who plays christian rock music

loveyourfaith Loveyourfaith (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell cares? It's not like any of their recent music has anything to do with christianity.

Ok so at least put Christian Rock band (rock band with all christian members) u may deny they are a Christian rock band but its up to no debate they are a Christian Rock band theres a difference between the two.

loveyourfaith Loveyourfaith (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Their religion is irrelevant to the lead, it is for their genre. In genre related terms their not a 'Christian band' Landon1980 (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

But what about there song new drug which is clearly christian rock or there song puppet which if you listen you can see is christian rock and falls apart is aslo chrristian rock and breath you in is and as soon as I can find more reasons saying they are christian I will post them.

And post your reasons before you change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.160.221 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok,whoever keeps changing the artical back must not have any good reasons to change it so if anyone knows how to block him please do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.151.200 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"TFK is a christian band, they participate in christian events like the Creation Festival (http://www.creationfest.com/ne/program.php) and play shows in churchs, and i have the álbum "Phenomenon", these guys are christians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacheco Mortification (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Who the hell cares? It's not like any of their recent music has anything to do with christianity." Their albums are flooded with religious overtones... Still, Wikipedia isn't the place for personal ideals on band lyrical approaches. The band considers their music to be Christian music and there's sources to back it. Remember, just because the music is labeled as such does not mean their music is "just for Christians" or contains a fireball sermons about infidels and crackheads. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Genre Solution

I've got an idea, there's been plenty of debate on almost every band's talk page concerning their genre. A general rule of thumb for ANY WP article is that there should be third-party, verifiable, reliable citations for any claims. Therefore, I suggest that any genre's that can be shown to be cited in external media (the band's claims such as in myspace/last.fm/etc themselves are considered first-person, and unfortunately cannot be used). There should be plenty of sources for any legitimate genre claims. How does this sound? Wikiwikikid (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• The rapcore reference seems to be fine, but if there is any debate about that one, this Christianity Today Interview with TFK references both rapcore and nu-metal (with the interviewer calling them both, rather than the band just claiming to be both). Would there be any objections to this being used and if so, why? I've found several references for rap-rock, but I'm under the impression that this is, essentially, rapcore, so we don't need redundancy in listing genres. Remember, our own personal opinions do not matter, but our sources should be third-party, verifiable, and reliable. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

PS, I've spent a lot of time, and cannot find anything that claims Christian metal or Christian Metal or Christian rock or Christian Rock, so as far as I'm concerned we should leave these ones out. I know they are not currently listed, but they are some of the debated genres. If someone else can find a good source for them, then they should definitely include those as well. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• This Jesus Freak Hideout TFK review, describes TFK as using Heavy metal riffs, which I suppose would confirm that genre. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to sorce christian metal or christian rock or any christian gernre with this band cause all people who know anything about them know they're a christian band with christian lyrics and I've heard alot of people say this artical is unreliable because they say they don't do christian music.

You are incorrect, see the Paramore article talk page. Also the Musicians project generally agrees that ANY facts stated should be sourced/cited. Just because people/fans think/know they are a particular genre does not mean that you can automatically include it, unreferenced, in an encyclopedia. Wikiwikikid (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Christian rock

Do other editors wish to have this genre included? I don't have a problem with the genre I just want to see it sourced properly. I hate adding a genre just because one source says 'Christian rock' in a categories section along with alt rock (shows they don't even know the difference) then the source has a review and sure doesn't mention Christian rock. It needs a reliable source that definitively says their genre is Christian rock. Landon1980 (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus is -always- over-ruled by a reliable source, which musicmight is. So this is largely pointless anyway, the genre IS staying in.

Secondly, the source clearly says "Categories: christian rock, alternative rock". I'm sorry, but there really is absolutely no argument to be made that this source doesn't call them christian rock (and to suggest that "categories" isn't what the site uses in place of "genre" is just plain pedantic). You honestly cannot get -any- clearer than that. It -does- say christian rock, so unless you can find a number of more reliable sources that outright deny their christian rock status (note: not mentioning it is not the same as denying it), there is no reason whatsoever to remove it.

As such, I suggest you cease these pointless reverts. Prophaniti (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Landon, you cannot claim consensus by your own opinion. There is, indeed, a difference between Christian rock and Alt Rock, but a band can certainly be both. This citation appears to be a reliable, verifiable reference. Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiwikikid, just a couple weeks ago you barely even knew what a source was. If this band is indeed 'Christian rock' why not cite it with a third party, reliable source known for fact checking and accuracy. We would only use a selfpublished category listing if that was all we could find. On genres it is always good to have it in a review, not a site listing multiple in categorie/style sections. When dealing with self-published sources of any kind you should take the concerns of any editor seriously, not mindlessly revert (like you do on any article you work on) to implement your changes. Do you have something against using a reliable, third party source? I don't know where you get that I have something against Christian rock, I am as Christian as one can possibly be. I just like to make sure it belongs, and in this case I'm not so sure. All I want is it to be sourced properly, that should not be to much to ask. It looks like other experts (the ones I could find anyways) do not consider this band's genre Christian rock. There is nothing wrong with verifying this guys cliam by weighing his opinion against others in the industry. Landon1980 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is something wrong with it: us taking action to verify him, making statements about how reliable he is, counts as original research, which isn't allowed. The only way we can say whether he's a reliable source or not is based on wikipedia's guidelines. And those state that if something is published, it's reliable. Not only has the website has many published books, self-published or not, but Sharpe-Young has had non-self-published books to his own name. So I'm sorry, but what we have -is- a reliable source, which -does- term them christian rock. Remember that wikipedia only reports the facts as they are in reliable sources, regardless of editors' personal feelings on the matters.

In addition, watch what you say about wikiwikikid: some of your statements could be taken as personal attacks (i.e. talking about the user, not the edits).Prophaniti (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Remember that wikipedia only reports the facts as they are in reliable sources, regardless of editors' personal feelings on the matters."

Ok I agree. That being the case you need to add a category section and leave it out of the genres. I have looked all morning and there seem to be no other sources that deem the band Christian rock. Calling them 'Christian rockers' such as mtv, vh1, etc., but they then go on to say they are "Christian themed rap" As for alternative rock, no other source backs up that claim. Stop shoving policy down my throat, I am aware of all existing policies and guidelines. Landon1980 (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, will you point me to the policy that says "if it's published it's reliable" Landon1980 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm done with this immature debate, so you can stop edit warring here. Looks like you have a bad habit of edit warring to get what you want, you should consider using the talk page instead of just reverting like we have done in this case. I for one have better things to do. Landon1980 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason I keep "shoving policy down your throat" is because you seem to keep ignoring it.

A single source is all we need. It doesn't matter if there aren't others, we have one and you haven't supplied any the outright deny it. "Genre" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a style or category of painting, film, music, etc", so category is the same thing, and I won't add in anything else for it.

Right then, I'm glad to see you've finally realised this is an argument you can't win and have backed down. Thank you. And no, I don't. I have a habit of abiding by wikipedia's rules. Some other editors don't. That is where the conflict arises, and it's fairly obvious who is therefore in the right. Prophaniti (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have one self-published source that calls them two genres at once, then says something completely different in the actual review. It has nothing to do with "winning" How old are you by the way? I just don't think it is worth being blocked over. Would you like me to supply you with dozens of diffs of you edit warring on multiple articles to implement your changes? It doesn't matter if you are "right" or "wrong" edit warring is never the solution. Edit warring never works, if someone doesn't be the mature one and cease both parties are blocked. Landon1980 (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, he is not self-published. Calling them two genres at once, especially when one genre is more of a quality/trait than a genre anyway, means nothing: Every source you will find on music genres acknowledges that a band can be more than one at a time.

And I agree on edit warring. However, there's nothing "immature" about refusing to back down when I have been completely and utterly in the right all along.

My age has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever, I'm not going to provide you with further fuel for personal attacks, which is plainly what you're looking for. Prophaniti (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake...here we go again. Landon, why on earth have you gone and removed those two genres -again-? I thought this had finally been settled. You claim they are questionable: why? The source -is- valid, it -does- call them those genres. You personally may not agree with it, but your personal view has no bearing on this.

Also, I seem to recall you claiming that I was "gaming" the 3RR, something I'd like to stress I've never done before. Yet here you are doing precisely that: waiting and then reverting yet again. Supply a -very good- reason for your last revert here or I'll simply take this to a mediation board. I really do say this for your own good: quit while you're ahead. Prophaniti (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Prophaniti, please feel free to take me to a "mediation board." If you are referring to a formal mediation I assure you the case would be rejected. The next step here would be some type of dispute resolution such as WP:Third opinion. The problem is no other sources seem to agree with muscicmight, definitely not on Alternative rock. Some others refer to them as Christian rockers who produce numetal-rap infused with a strong Christian ethos, but not 'Christian rock'. One database labeling them in two categories, and at the same time contradicting that in a review is not enough to justify the addition of two genres. Wikipedia is based on consensus, you need to stop trying to pass your opinions off as fact. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter (as you repeatedly suggest). I have no problem with the genre Christian rock or alternative rock, but we are supposed to listen to the sources in general. Just because one database says something doesn't mean it has to be added. You seem to have a bad habit of assuming bad faith while accusing other editors of "vandalism" in content disputes. Do you want to request a third opinion, or shall I? Landon1980 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is still totally flawed. Please, I implore you, -read- what I type next, and try to understand how wrong what you're saying is:

1.) One source is enough when there aren't others that contradict it, because by wikipedia's rules one valid source (which this is) outweighs any number of editor opinions. The fact is you have no case whatsoever for suggesting this source isn't enough: there are countless places on wikipedia where only a single source is given for a band's genre. If you do want another, as much as I dislike the site personally, try allmusic. You'll see that it too labels them very specifically "christian rock". It also labels them "heavy metal", "rap metal" and "christian metal", so if you want to add those in too, go for it.

2.) There is -nothing- wrong with labelling a band more than one genre at once. Honestly, if you think there is then I suggest you just stop editing bands right now, because it's the most absurd attempt at a criticism I've ever heard here. It really really is. Every single source you will find gives bands more than one genre. There is nothing wrong with it, whatsoever.

3.) It doesn't contradict itself in the expanded blurb. What you mean is, it doesn't use that exact term again. But that's not "contradicting". There's no point in there where it says "Oh, by the way, they're not christian rock". Again, please drop this point, because you're just making yourself look foolish.

If you want to go and request a third opinion, go for it. The end result will be the same, because wikipedia uses reliable sources to cite genres, and that's precisely what I'm doing. Prophaniti (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA before continuing here. You have attacked me as a person throughout this entire discussion. About allmusic, the fact they agree with musicmight says a lot about musicmight as allmusic is notoriously wrong all the time. Landon1980 (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Take your own advice. I have not attacked you personally: I have attacked your logic, your reasoning, and for valid reasons. I have stated that your edits and constant reverts appear foolish, because they are continually going against wikipedia's core policies.

Yes, I agree: allmusic is unreliable. But that's -my- opinion. Indeed, a while back I tried, unsuccessfully, to have it black-listed as a source here on wikipedia. It got nowhere, because wikipedia is founded on "verifiability, not truth", and I have since abandoned this line and instead just stuck to improving wikipedia by it's rules. Allmusic may well be wrong. Musicmight may well be wrong. But that's not the issue here, because such judgements are our own personal views and, as I have tried to explain to you time and time again, have no bearing on this discussion. Allmusic being invalid is your POV. For what it's worth, it's my POV too. But as I say, that's not the issue. Prophaniti (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to read over the npa policy, attacking the editor in any way is violating it. Whether it be my logic or my shoe size doesn't matter. Saying my logic is foolish is saying I am foolish. Like you said, Wikipedia is based on verifiability. We do not have to take the word of one database, but we can listen to what reliable sourcs in general are saying. You are all over wikipedia shoving musicmight down the throat of fellow editors, and edit warring on multiple articles. You have got to understand that just because one database says something doesn't mean it has to be added. Landon1980 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you need to understand that yes, it -does- mean it has to be added. That's how wikipedia works. If a valid source (which you have yet to prove this isn't) says a band is X genre, and no other valid sources contradict (note: contradict, not "not support") that, then it -does- get added. What you are doing is not listening to a reliable source, yet you say you support that concept in the same sentence.

Now, if you had other sources that directly contradicted musicmight, then you'd have a case. But you don't. So what you're doing is removing validly sourced content, and thus is actively harmful to wikipedia. Prophaniti (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB mediator

Hi all! I have accepted this case. I've briefly looked through the debate so far and just doing a bit of background research it seems, initially at least, that this band has been described as a Christian rock band in multiple locations; such as here (called "Christian music"), here (it describes a well-known "Christian rock" festival), here (Lists it as under the "Christian rock" genre), and it seems that they are recognized as "gospel music" artists, being nominated for the GMA awards here. Others describe them as simply Christian musicians; such as here. Still others seem to describe them as Christian musicians; such as here. And still other's as simply Christian; such as here. This band was up for a Juno Awards under the category ""Contemporary Christian/Gospel Album" as can be seen here.

It certainly seems that their music has a strong religious, praise or Christian aspect to it. (NB: not all sources are WP:RS compliant but it shows a strong public perception of their genre.

Comments? :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fr33kman, thank you for taking the case. What about alternative rock? That was the one that concerns me the most. As I said before, other sources refer to their music as 'Christian music' and call them a Christian band, but I've never seen anyone else say alternative rock. Landon1980 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the sources you provided briefly, and are they all to Christian sites? I saw one database in there though? Is it not possible that the Christian sites call them 'Christian band/rock/music' to try and promote their music, and wouldn't they be biased? Isn't a genre supposed to be sourced by a reliable, third party, published source known for fact checking and accuracy? They are also supposed to be experts in the field, this case the field being music. I have monitored dozens of music related articles on here over the last couple years, and genres are usually sourced by reviews fromk well-known music critics i.e. The Rolling Stone, New York Times, MTV, etc. Databases and sites with a possible bias are usually only used as a last resort. Contrary to Prophaniti's belief, I have no problem with the genres being added. All I want is to see them sourced properly and nothing more. Landon1980 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not really. a) There is the number of sources involved lends some credence to the claim, b) this post is not a Christian organization, c) AOL music lists them in the "Christian rock" genre (not definitive, I know), d) The band has allowed its music to be made part of the Guitar Praise product which is described as "Christian music", e) the band likely isn't important enough yet for MTV, Rolling Stone reviews (check the Rolling Stone site and they don't label them at all), f) last.fm is not a Christian organization and it lists them as "Christian rock" (not definitive either), g) Amazon.com lists them as Christian music, h) the people who listen to them call them "Christian rock", i) sputnikmusic has a review that straight out calls them "Christian rock", j) iTunes lists them as "Christian rock", k) in the book, Crucifixion by Erik Sollenberger, he describes the band as a "Christian rock band" see here l) they have music included in this CD "X 2005: 17 Christian Rock Hits!" which strongly implies they are a Christian rock band. Now in music, it's not too important what the band calls themselves because bands (and record labels) don't want to be type-cast and so hardly ever "genre" themselves. It is important what the public calls them and I think it can be seen that they are called a "Christian rock band". For the article how about "band with a strong focus in Christian rock"?

I think a good compromise here might be, "a rock band with Christian rock roots." ?? Comments?

• As for "alternative rock"; a) last.fm tags them as such, b)100 XR describes them as such www.100xr.com/100_XR/Artists/T/Thousand_Foot_Krutch.htm (but it's not definitive), c)http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/386226/review_of_thousand_foot_krutchs_new.html?cat=33 review at Associated Content describes them as such (not definitive), d) This site describes them as such, e) New Release Tuesday has an interview with a member which describes them as such, f) This site describes them as such also.

Now, I'm mediating here, not dictating and it's important for you guys to review what I've written here but it does seem that with so many places calling them "Christian rock" and "Alternative rock" and "Hip-Hop" "Christian Rap" etcetera there must be something to it.

So, perhaps now the compromise becomes; "a rock band with Christian rock roots and alternative rock styling." You can always explain that they are changing, but that can be said of all bands. :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't what goes in the lead sentence, it is what goes in the infobox. The lead is neutral just as it should be. According to MOS regarding the infobox you are supposed to aim for generality. If we are going to add every single genre, sub genre etc. then it will be one cluttered list. I've seen sources calling them rap, hip hop, and many many more. I also want to add that what the band and the public say have no bearing on what genre the band is. The source is supposed to be third-party, unless you say "according to the public they are _____" or "according to the band" By the way, both MTV, and Vh1 have done reviews on this band. What I would personally like to do is make a musical styles section, and explain the issue. I think the lead should be along the lines of "Thousand Foot Krutch is a rock/whatever band with a strong Christian ethos" There are sources that explicitly say just that, reliable eones. Landon1980 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sputnik is user edited, last fm calls them a Christian Rock, not a Christian rock band, the site also calls them 4 or 5 other genres as it is a database. The others are either first-party, online stores, databases, or are not definitive. Christian music does not mean 'Christian rock' to say it did would be OR. There needs to be some guidelines on this, this problem is literally all over wikipedia involving hundreds of editors. Show me a music article that has not had some type of genre war. All we have to go by is 'aim for generality' which is not listing every genre that can be found by "googling." Online stores list any band under what ever genres they think the public may consider the band in order for that shopper to find a given band they list anything possibly concieved by the public. Landon1980 (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it was the lead. Well then it doesn't really matter what the infobox says too much. Keep it generic (Rock band covers all the styles doesn't it?) and put the genres in the lead section (pretty much as you've just suggested). fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you are doing a fine job. I like that idea, but let's wait and see what prophaniti has to say about it. Let me ask you something, do you know the appropriate steps to take to just try and have some guidelines put in place regarding genres? Are you pretty familiar with the problem? It literally spreads across the entire project on nearly every music related article. It would be a big help if editors had some type of guidlines to reflect on. Landon1980 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'm familiar with the problem, it's huge! I'd be very surprised if there were even 25% of the musical group articles that hadn't gone through this at some point. Starting a guideline very well might have a shot (be ready for heated debate on it though) :-) I'd start it off here as it's the sort of thing the whole community would probably want to have a say in rather than just project people. Just start a new topic and go. I'd do a search first and see if it has been done, but probably not. fr33kman ^{t - c} 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Before this is fully over, Prophaniti (talk · contribs) needs to weigh in to be fair of us. fr33kman ^{t - c} 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Phew, well I'm afraid I'll have to keep this short for now (I've put a message on my talk page about how I'm currently away from home and as such my internet time is very limited right now, but I'll try and get a few things done, this included).

I think given the sheer number of sources "christian rock" certainly can't be disputed. As for alternative rock, the point is that there is a reliable source calling them that. There might not be others, but there aren't any contradicting it either. The problem I have with removing it is that there are countless other band articles with only a single source given for genres, usually allmusic. In the past I've challenged such genres, and every time I've gotten nowhere because editors have simply said "If a source says it, it stays in, doesn't matter what you think". That's the case here: it's only one source, but according to wikipedia one source outweighs the opinions of a single editor and can't be removed unless there's something of equal or greater reliability directly conflicting with it.

If there's some exception to this, or if this isn't actually the case and I've been misled all this time, I honestly would love to see it.

Oh, also, having had a quick look through the given sources, last.fm certainly isn't one regarded as reliable, I know that much. The tags are generated by users tagging bands, so it gives mass opinion but not professional opinion. Prophaniti (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to the discussion. Last.fm is not reliable that is sure. I think my point was that there are a lot of the "public" out there calling them so-and-so, so it points us towards a direction. I think that the real point to be considered here is should the infobox contain ALL the genres that this band has ever been described as being in, or would it be too cluttered and better to describe them as a rock band in the infobox and the rest in the lead section? What do you think? Both of you? fr33kman ^{t - c} 18:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

btw: I know that you are coming off block; rest assured that makes no diffeence to me, or to this discussion!! :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 18:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The fuss is about what...? I think the people here describing them as a secular band just want to avoid the notion that a band they like is a Christian musical group. They are open about their music being Christian music and are open about the genre of Christian rock. We can find no source stating they are not other than what I see people saying here on this discussion page, which is no source. The Genre I am most concerned with is "Alternative Rock." I can certainly see them described as such but I can find no source saying this other than their myspace page. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New christian rock issue

Two perfectly valid sources have now been provied for christian rock, allmusic and NME. Landon1980 continues to remove the sources. Landon, why? Both are perfectly valid sources, one describes them as "christian rock" the other as "christian metal". Given metal is a subgenre of rock, this gives us two fine sources for christian rock. Either would be enough, given the lack of sources on this page. Can you give any good reason for your removal of this information before it's taken to third opinion? Prophaniti (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Being able to source their religion doesn't make it infobox material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.85 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the sources in question before you comment. If you had, you'd have noticed that they don't simply say "they happen to be christian", but rather cite their genre as christian rock. Prophaniti (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Will someone show me where the consensus for Christian rock is I can't find it on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.121 (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll let fisher queen answer that for you, I'm not sure which thread she is referring to. The last discussion I was in on here ended with comply with wiki guidelines and aim for generality when dealing with the infobox. "instead of east coast hip hop just put hip hop" Christian rock definitely is a real genre, but in a lot of cases when dealing with the sources the Christian tag is intended to mean "Christians in a band" not that their genre is Christian rock. Allmusic is almost never permitted as a reliable source, and the other source doesn't call them Christian rock as far as I can tell. The source also goes into depth of how they have slowly evolved into a mainstream rock band. Oh, when you write a comment you can sign it by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ Landon1980 (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that most sources refer to the band as "Christian rockers" and not a Christian rock band, like MTV has done. Being Christians does not automatically make them a Christian band. Landon1980 (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering that three of their albums have been nominated for Juno Awards in the Contemporary Christian/Gospel category, and thay have even more nominations at the Gospel Music Association Canada Covenant Awards, I think it's fair to say that it's not just that the band members are Christian, it's a Christian band making Christian music. And since when is Allmusic disallowed as a reliable source? Also, Christianity Today, quoting an older Tooth & Nail bio, starts off, "With six #1 Christian rock singles...". The Christian Music/Gospel columnist on About.com categorizes them as Christian rock. CD Universe classifies them as Christian rock. An album of theirs is currently charting on Amazon's Christian rap, Christian alternative, and Christian rock charts. The Albequerque Journal refers to them as "making waves in the Christian rock and hip hop scenes". (See this link for waaay more results from highbeam.com.) 411mania.com calls them Christian rock. And check the Google News Archive for more. Anyway, what I see in the above discussions is Landon1980 arguing against the Christian rock label, and multiple editors arguing for it. That smells like a consensus to me. Precious Roy (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Will you point out the multiple editors to me please? Of the three involved in the mediation the mediator and myself both agreed Christian rock does not belong in the infobox, prophaniti never responded. I don't give a fucking shit anymore but there is currently no "consensus" if you would have read the discussion you'd of known that. You are most likely a sock puppet of someone anyway, but I honestly couldn't care less what this bands genre is, but you shouldn't lie about consensus. Read the thread on ANI, there is no consensus. Please show me all these editors on this talk page saying cr should be in the infobox. Landon1980 (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll type this out slowly so you can follow along:

• Under the Genre heading above, a single-edit IP (205.201.192.24) brings up the issue (not Christian rock). Responses are from 82.38.65.47 (Christian rock), IronCrow (Christian rock), 88.105.64.237 (Christian rock), Teacherbrock (Christian rock), then you pipe in (not Christian rock).
• The discussion under Ridiculous genres is more about genres like Christian hardcore and Christian metal and doesn't seem to touch on whether or not they are Christian rock.
• Under Christian rock, Loveyourfaith (Christian rock), 88.105.64.237 (apathetic "who the hell cares"), you weigh in (already heard from ), 65.169.88.195 (Christian rock), 72.161.160.221 (seems to be Christian rock, unless their comment wasn't directed at you), the comment by 69.29.151.200 does not appear to be related to the Christian rock issue (no edits made around that time added or removed it), Pacheco Mortification (Christian rock)
• Under Genre solution Wikiwikikid appears to against (not Christian rock), being unable to find a source for it, 75.121.44.105 disagrees (Christian rock)
• Under Christian rock you weigh in again (already heard from), Prophaniti (Christian rock), Wikiwikikid is swayed by Prophaniti's reference (Christian rock)
• Under MEDCAB mediator Fr33kman mediates, agrees the band is Christian rock but suggests leaving it generic ("Rock") in the infobox but including it in the lead paragraph. You weigh in (already heard from) as does Prophaniti (already heard from).
• Under New christian rock issue Prophaniti starts things off (already heard from), 206.53.144.85 (not Christian rock) (206.53.144.121 is likely the same editor), you weigh in (already heard from), then me (Christian rock).

Consensus does not mean everybody agrees, it means most people agree. And way more people have voiced the opinion that the band is Christian rock. Fr33kman's suggestion of keeping the infobox generic is not without merit but neither is it binding. And since you "don't give a fucking shit anymore", I guess you won't be back to discuss this further, which is perfectly ok. If you do come back, can you post the link to the ANI discussion? I haven't seen that. Precious Roy (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#I'm filled with self-doubt. Regards SoWhy 14:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Something to note: while Precious Roy is putting forward a fine argument, it’s all somewhat irrelevant: I provided a source, allmusic, for christian rock. Not “a rock band that happens to be christian”, but under the genre heading “Christian rock”. Allmusic is an accepted source (I think this might be the root of the problem here for you Landon, since you seem unaware of how much it's accepted on wikipedia), and it says, unequivocally, that they are christian rock. That’s all there is to it. When you have a source like that you don’t need consensus. Remember, reliable sources always outweigh any number of wikipedia editor opinions. So even if 100 editors were against it, christian rock is going into the genre field. Prophaniti (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The only genre the allmusic source lists is pop/rock along with heavy metal, Christian Rap, Rap-Metal, and Christian rock under a styles section. So why exactly have you not added the rest of those? Did you not notice how the actual review on the page only called them "Christian rockers?" It is laughable that you think 1 source will override consensus of 100 editors, I will provide you with a scenario for you to test that out if you would like. If you would brush up on policy a bit you would know that we listen to the majority of sources. Let me know if you really think that you can override consensus with one reliable source and I'll assist you in testing that out. Who knows, you may be lucky enough to land your 4th block. Next time you will be blocked 1 week. Landon1980 (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep your personal attack comments to yourself, Landon, or it'll be you with the block. I won't warn you again on that.

It's not me saying 1 source can override 100 editors. That's wikipedia. Because editors are anonymous. There is nothing to suggest they are experts in any particular field. Whereas a reliable source is, by definition, expert. Professional. So one of those will -always- trump editor opinion.

Those styles are the genres. Genre and style are interchangable terms in this context (look "genre" up in the dictionary if you don't believe me). It lists "pop/rock" as a very general term for many bands, then elaborates with the more specific styles. If you want to add all those others, go for it. I'm not saying you can't.

And if you think it terming them "christian rockers" somehow contradicts what it says elsewhere...then you really do have problems. christian rockers and christian rock contradicting one another...wow. Keep on digging there. Prophaniti (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack? Why don't you go ahead and report me now instead of threatening to? All I said was the idea of 1 source overriding the consensus of 100 editors is laughable, and it is. Would you like to test that out or not? Landon1980 (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm done arguing about Christian rock being in the infobox, the truth is I couldn't possibly care less if it is. What I wanted to happen has already happened so I am done here. Landon1980 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself: we go with majority of -sources-. And editors aren't sources. So yes, 1 source -will- override 100 editors. If you want to "test that", help yourself. I'm not fussed, because in this particular case, as has been illustrated, we have consensus for christian rock anyway. So whatever way you look at it, that's what it's going to be. I’m just genuinely stunned that you can be THAT desperate in scrabbling around for some way to enforce your POV on an article.

And that's funny. What you wanted to happen was for christian rock to not be included. Yet it is. Doesn't seem much like you got what you wanted. More like that old "pretending not to care" thing. Prophaniti (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not what I wanted to happen happened a few days ago, so I really am done here. Whether you understand how sourcing vs consensus works I don't care about. Policies like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT put a damper on your "only has to be one source" theory. Landon1980 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, Landon. If you'd actually read the undue weight policy as I have, you might have noticed it says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" and "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". Editors aren't reliable sources. Oh and in case it really wasn't 100% clear for you: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." I don't think I need say anything more. Prophaniti (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be correct in theory, but you would be blocked faster than you could say 4th block if you tried that against 100 editors. You are misreading the point I'm trying to make. You seem to be under the impression that just because one source says something that it has to be put in the article and that 100 editors could do nothing about that. Weren't you just recently blocked for trying that against a mere 3 or 4 people? On wikipedia we listen to what the sources say in general, no one source will have much of an impact on an article. That is why I linked you to the undue weight policy. We asses the importance of the material the source is citing and then go from there. For example if 13 sources can be found calling a band punk rock, and only one source can be found for pop rock editors within their right can choose to not include pop rock, or to not give pop rock as much weight as punk rock in the article. If you still do not understand let me know and I'll upload a video to youtube. I can use bright colors, funny shapes, and even make monkey motions if you'd like. Landon1980 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond properly to an obvious sore loser, Landon. It's painfully apparent that you won't accept wiki policy where it conflict with your POV and will do all you can to try to undermine things. Just deal with it and move on. Prophaniti (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I notice that Landon1980 has dropped the consensus argument but was quick to latch onto Prophaniti's "single source". What about all the other sources that Fr33kman linked to? The bottom line: There are sources that say they are Christian rock and the consensus on the talk page is to include Christian rock in the infobox. I don't see why this argument is continuing. Also, Landon1980, you really should stop trying to goad Prophaniti into getting him/herself blocked; that's really not the way that editors work together. Just because you didn't get your way doesn't mean you shouldn't act civilly to those you disagree with. Precious Roy (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My one source argument has nothing to do with Christian rock, try reading the comments. There may be a consensus now, but when you reverted with such a claim there was no consensus. It was an old thread where two editors said keep it out and the one that wanted it in simply left the discussion. That is not consensus. Four different admins clearly said they could see no consensus on this talk page, only you. I'll not reply to any further comments so you two have fun. Landon1980 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at all this, it seems blatantly clear from the sources, awards, promotion, etc. that this band has been classified under the Christian rock genre, therefore it can and should be indicated in the infobox, lede, categories, etc. It would seem that any further attempts to deny this reality and exclude this genre would involve some degree of Wikilawyering. While the band may have more general market ambitions,[1] they do have a song on the X Christmas compilation which classifies the band in the "Christian rock" category.[2][3] Also note that the Christian rock genre article on WP seems to be well-established and accepted under Category:Rock music genres. Dl2000 (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The horse is dead so why not leave the poor beast alone? Christian rock is in the infobox and will stay in the infobox. You are wrong about the lead sentence though, CR is one of many genres this band falls under. The lead sentence is best left neutral, and rock is as neutral as you can get and covers all the genres/sub-genres. Nearly all of our music articles reflect the most general information in the lead sentence regarding genres, that is what the infobox and musical style sections are for. Landon1980 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and stuck it in there, if someone has an issue just take the source and put it in the infobox. Just FYI for anyone who wants to know... If you play Christian Rock that makes you a Christian musical group... that's the point of it... If you are called a Christian band, that DOES NOT MEAN they are refering to "just Christians in a band," that would be a Band. Paramore is a band with Christian members, NOT a Christian band. TFK is a Christian Band, not just "Christians in a band," there is a difference and has been since the term was coined. That goes for other bands as well. 74.5.111.155 (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would have paid attention you would have seen Christian rock was already in the infobox, and has been for months. When a band is listed as being many genres you put the most general one in the lead sentence, not pick on of the many and place it there. All genres listed are types of rock, therefore rock is in the lead. Landon1980 (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Landon, I'm certainly not opposed to keeping it as just "rock" if it is indeed policy to list the most general one in the lead sentence. However, I think that editor raises a good point. It actually does seem to make a lot of sense to put the elad as whatever they are generally most well known as. What is the policy for using "the most general one in the lead sentence"? Thanks! Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having another brick-wall discussion with you, nor am I taking the time the educate you regarding the common practice of genres on wikipedia. Use some common sense, Christian rock is one of three genres that are listed for the band, all which are some type of rock. I will not sit here and beat a dead horse, engaging in some pointless discussion with you. If you have problem with the current version request a third opinion, or seek some other type of dispute resolution. Now I think I'll go pound on my foot with a hammer. Landon1980 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That comment was very disrespectful. In fact, I'm pretty certain it could be considered a personal attack. These conversations aren't pointless discussions, rather, they are the POINT of the "discussion" page. Editors are SUPPOSED to collaborate on these matters. How about this, how about YOU go get a third opinion, as I agree with the user above. If you have a problem with it then provide the policy that governs this instead of making it up yourself. All I did was ask you what policy gives guidance that the most general genre should be used for lead in. Do not insult me again. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for starters. Seriously though, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot as talk to you. By plucking one of three genres out of the bunch and making it dominant you violate our NPOV policy. Unless you can provide a reliable source that definitively says they are almost always defined as 'Christian rock' you do not have a case. As of now it is one of several, all with reliable sources. Look around wikipedia, this is done very frequently, listing the general term is very accurate, doesn't pick sides, and cuts down on edit warring. Landon1980 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

@JamieS93, yes I'm ok with what you have done. I think there used to be more sources, maybe I saw them somewhere else instead of here though. I'm going to look for some better/more sources. Landon1980 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just now had the time to search for a few new sources. I'm going to go ahead and list the ones I've found so far, then see what they can be used for, or if the article can be expanded by them. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Landon1980 (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead-in Genre

After an initial disagreement and further conversation with User:Landon1980 I agree that the lead-in sentence, rather than just being the most vague, should be the most substantiated genre. While I was under the impression that they were most commonly referred to as a Christian rock band, I've searched through some genre sources along with the ones already provided, and most sources I've found definitely say "rock." If anyone seeks to change the lead-in genre to Christian rock, please provide evidence to substantiate this claim (a substantial number of acceptable sources) that they are primarily Christian rock rather than rock. If you have an opinion or know of policy contrary to this, please feel free to share it so that we can take this into consideration, and happy editting!Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

They are both, and have been identified as such countess times by secondary sources and have counted themselves as such more than once. However, I don't find an issue with it being in the lead-in or not, it's a stupid argument. Period. It's in the infobox, so what's the deal? The genre dispute I see is as to classify them as nu-metal anymore or not. They are really just, well, rock in terms of musical genre. Anyways, I agree that the clasification is fine as is, though I still have that one question...

Nu-metal? Still? Isn't Nu-metal along the lines of Korn, specifically their older material? 74.5.110.177 (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

hello, pot! i'm kettle. first off, it's not an argument, it's a discussion. discussion is the basis for most of wikipedia's editing. specifically, for contentious information, it is especially important. for instance, you yourself have taken up issue with an included genre. regardless what you or anyone thinks nu-metal is/is not, if we have reliable, third-party sources then it should be included. our job is to report according to reliable third party sources, not determine what the "truth" is (see WP:TRUTH. further, genre's are probably one of (if not THE) most contentious item in common amongst musician/band articles. that having been said, it'd be nice to actually reference these genre's. i thought they were referenced at one point in time... Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Landon is still going on about this? The guy's been going around a lot of Christian musical group articles trying to take the genre out. Not that I care about these kind of bands, but it gets you thinking. Anyways, how about I settle this and put the sources where they belong? There's no need to describe them as a Christian band when it's already sourced in the infobox. Moving sources so readers don't see redundant items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.83.12 (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed tirelessly on this discussion page. Quit taking it out or we'll inevitably have to call in an admin to deal with this. Sources were applied, stated, and discussed on this page. You guys are really being too serious about this. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he was disagreeing with the consensus or changing/taking out the genre, he was just moving sources. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the Masquerade

I was just wondering, since there is already a Welcome to the Masquerade page, why can't we add info about it if it has already been confirmed. I tried to, but Landon1980 undid it saying, "wait until it is released." I just want to know why you're waiting. Charlitus54 (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. We can say WHEN they intend to release or THAT they plan to release (if you have a reliable, verifiable source). However, this cannot go into the discography, as the discography, by definition, is a list of released albums. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah... I see... now I understand. Well, I found on toothandnail.com that the release is September 8, and I'm guessing that's a reliable source. I'm about to add it. thanks for the help, Charlitus54 (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Fire it up

Should a separate page be made for the single "Fire it up" as it has charted, and is featured in so many games, ads and trailers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116Rebel (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Manafest and TFK

Trevor McNevan also has another side project as a rapper/artist in Manafest. Needs to be included somewhere see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ew-jMy794

It is mentioned in passing on Trevor McNevan and on Manafest. Why does it need to be mentioned on the band page? Does it have anything to do with the band or with the individual? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, Chris Greenwood (Manafest) is not Trevor McNevan. Two completely different people. However, Trevor helps Manafest often. Srsrox (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Look, everyone stop fighting. This text is inappropriate on the grounds that it's total original research. Who's to say that that song is the band's "most commercial success"? Adding a Wikipedia article as a source for that doesn't work on two fronts: one, it's a link to a Rock Band article and has nothing to do with commercial success per se, and two, Wiki isn't a reliable source. So stop adding this text - the anon IP has already passed 3RR twice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm done with this page. I became involved here via a 3O, and I gave it, so now I'm done. No desire to be a part of this page anymore. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Was involved in it too. I'm done and have gone to RFPP and the edit war board. OpenTheWindows, sir! 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Stepping back. This is the body of the text at the last point. The only edits I've made is linking internally to the wikipedia article and making it a sup instead of a ref, and placing citation requests in the questionable sections to help clarify matters for the anonymous editor.

The bands most commercial success to date came with the release of their single Fire It Up, which has been used in many movies, as well as being included as a downloadable track for Rock Band 2.¹

I hope this clears up the issue without having it digress further into an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we can put "citation needed" in it, but I'm not sure. OpenTheWindows, sir! 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that. This page is subject to BLP since the band is still active, so you should only add text for which you have references. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. OpenTheWindows, sir! 20:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm pretty sure that WP:BLP only talks about Neutral point of view, Verifiability , and No original research. The citations needed would cover that quite well, adequately marking the material as dubious. The only requirement for immediate removal would be attacks or other libellous material. The above material is obviously non-verifiable WP:OR though and is the main reason I've been reverting. Welcome other editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The grammar and spelling are still a further issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

unlreliable sources

This article has major sourcing issues. The band passes the notability bar with the albums charting, so that is not an issue, but an incredible amount of this informatino is effectively OR. of the 39 "refs", 3 of them are actual RS in depth fact sources. The vast, overwhelming, majority are dead, self-published,PR, twitter/facebook/blog, or database dumps. This really needs to be cleaned up and things sourced correctly. I am tagging the article accordingly. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a breakdown of the sources currently used :

• allmusic, generally not an RS, just a minor blurb about the band
• the same allmusic link
• about.com not an RS, contains only the name TFK, with no commentary about them
• 2 sentence album release date
• allmusic again!
• actual interview. YAY!
• not an RS, basic band background
• dead link
• not much there. http://www.toothandnail.com/artists/190/Thousand_Foot_Krutch/bio/ might be a better link to use
• wikipedia mirror
• decent article
• blog. one line mention of TFK
• dead
• about.com - DOESNT MEANTION TFK AT ALL
• dead
• ticket sale site, just a tour date, no coverage
• last.fm again, just a link to a song
• Press release
• blog comparing band to baseball, and mirrored discography
• press release
• tour info, not independant
• database dump
• decent article
• myspace. deadlink
• hockey video, just playing TFK in background, no commentary
• facebook dead link
• twitter, self published
• self published
• dead link
• self published
• self published
• self published
• dead
• festival page just listing playing bands
• self published
• twitter
• kickstarter self published
• kickstarter self published
• self published

WP:PRIMARY indicates that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So unless you can point to how the primary sources are being misused, they are more than welcome to stay. I'm not saying they should all stay, only those that are not being used correctly. Remember that simply because it's a self-published primary source doesn't mean it must be excluded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say very few of the links actually qualify as primary sources (the venue/ticket/tour ones mainly). The band website/twitter/facebook etc would generally fail the "reliably published" criteria of the linked policy. In any case, I was not saying that they should all be removed, but pointing out that the article needs better sources. having a handful of questionable sources in an article is expected. having 99% of them be so indicates something is wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the Facebook and other social media sites do pass the reliably published criteria as the band and their agents are the only ones that can publish to the source. You're exaggerating the problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that WP:SELFSOURCE allows twitter and facebook, but only for a very limited and specifically enumerated set of uses. I am not claiming any particular fact/material from this page is in violation, merely that as 99% of the page is falling into the questionable source category, it is a problem, and that editors should be striving to find more reliable sources. in particular, see #5 in the selfsource criteria "the article is not based primarily on such sources." and also the first point "the material is not unduly self-serving" The bulk of material as a source is clearly promotional (although I am not claiming the editors to be misusing it), but #5 is clearly failed in this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly promotional now? I see it as informational, but if you would like to provide some examples we could certainly prune the information back.

Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 32#News releases as self published sources is a discussion about using press releases including those on Facebook. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

perhaps I was ambiguous there. My point was that the reason the band is making the website/twitter/facebook is for marketing promotional reasons (and there is nothing wrong with them doing so, be foolish for them not to). But that does reduce the value in those sources for wikipedia purposes (versus say a personal diary or memoir etc, which is not created for a promotional purpose). In any case, I was making my argument more more on the point of #5 which I think in this case is uncontestable, and probably distracted the discussion by bringing up #1. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)