Talk:Flyleaf (band)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality

This article is about a band. As such, arguments regarding the religious faith of the members doesn't belong in the article if it does not contribute directly to the information in the article. Nowhere in the current article does the religion of the band members affect the content. Please stop changing the genre listed for this band. jparenti 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Metal

They are too heavy top be classified as Alternative Rock, their style fits in far better with Alternative metal.

I don't see them as Post-Hardcore, either. AllAroundMe 23:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

--> The vocal style of Flyleaf fits in perfectly with Post-Hardcore. As the vocal style is the defining feature of post-hardcore, that is enough to place them in that genre.

I looked through some other band pages that are similar to Flyleaf's music/vocals - like Trapt and Chevelle. They aren't listed as Post-Hardcore, I don't think they are. and so I don't think Flyleaf should be, either. Or apparently those other bands need to be listed as it, then? I dunno. I still wouldn't label them as that. AllAroundMe 03:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

--> I would have said Flyleaf's vocal style was closer to Fightstar or Fireflight than Chevelle or Trapt. I'll remove Post-Hardcore from the genres anyhow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.68.91 (talk • contribs).

Again, see the post at the bottom of this page. Don't change the genre unless you have a source to back it up. Personal opinions and comparing them to other bands are original research and don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Chuck Sirloin 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, alas, Post-Hardcore was removed for a reason. :) AllAroundMe 16:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait AllAroundMe, you said they sounded more like fightstar right? well look at what genre THEY are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.103.212 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 18 January 2008

Other Bands

Please try to limit the other bands you mention on the page, remember this is about Flyleaf, that's the reason I removed a couple, also to make it look neater, hope no one minds.

204.60.182.207 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)==Holy Made Up Statistic Batman== From the article "Probably 50% of the people who first hear one of Flyleaf's mainstream songs don't know that they are Christian." I have no idea who added it, but that definitely doesn't belong in here and as such I'm removing it. You are right. For a long while I had no idea that Flyleaf was a Christian band and I do not characterize them as such. Although I did take note of a jesus mention in the song So I Thought. The beliefs of the band definitely do not affect how awesome their music is though. Rockers can have religion too.

Christian?

I love this band. I've seen them in concert twice now, and were one of the best each time. I'm just confused about something. Why are they considered Christian-based? Have they said this? It's just not the impression I get. DaftPenguu 08:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Their song, "All Around Me" was released by the band on the christian radio circut. Also many of their songs have symbolic references to Jesus. Such as in the song "So I thought", where the lyrics actually say "And all these twisted thoughts I see, Jesus there inbetween". Other songs, such as "Red Sam", also have some references to the religion, ex: "And I worship, And I worship, And I worship, And I worship. You are the truth. Outscreaming these lies, you are the truth. Saving my life". In the song "Cassie", there are also the lyrics "Do you believe in God? written on the bullet." Lindsey8417 02:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Many bands have symbolic references to Christianity. Are they all Christian bands? No. They are not a Christian band. jparenti 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are Christian.

It is obvious that they are a Christian band. Listen to their lyrics! They also claim to be a Christian band. The hit "I'm So Sick" isn't a secular song. "I'm So Sick" has haunting and creepy lyrics that portray an individual who has a viral disease of self and wants to break free from earthly passions. "Sorrow" begins as a mid-tempo rock piece that contains glimpses of depression, but shows a yearning for spiritual guidance as Lacey Mosley utters the words "Sorrow lasts through this night and I'll take this piece of You, and hold for all eternity; for just one second I felt whole... as You flew right through me." The song "All Around Me" speaks about desiring to have a stronger relationship with the Father, while the Evanescence feel of "Fully Alive" is about a young girl who yearns to escape the abuse of her family by finding comfort in the arms of a loving God. The beautiful ballad "There For You" is all about finding trust and strength in a true friend who will never let one down despite the selfishness of their past mistakes. Arguably the best song on the album lyrically is "Perfect," which is blatant in proclaiming "Perfect in weakness, I'm only perfect in just Your strength alone."

So now try and say that they aren't a Christian band.

That's fine, but if you know so much about groups in the genre, you should know that Evanescence is commonly mistaken for Christian music but clearly say that they're not, but I guess that really doesn't change what they are. Anyhow, what's with the pop-punk/hard rock tag? They're pretty different and somebody should put one or the other. I'm not a fan of this group, but my younger sister listens to them and they might sound like this: Melodic hardcore

Rabid coathangers eat da world 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know this.

That's weird 'cause most of those mentions are very minor. The song that said "Do you believe in God? written on the bullet." was more of a reference to Columbine than Christianity. What's also strange is that other bands have larger mention than Flyleaf's stuff, like Panic! At the Disco. They have a constant mention of God in their tracklistings, yet they're not considered Christian. System of a Down has some mentions, but they're not Christian. In fact there's lots of bands like that...

The Wretched

True, but they make quite a few references to God. Its not just one or two here or there. To me it seems like there is at least one refrence to God in each of thier songs.

Just the mention of God does not mean that a band is Christian, yes, but Flyleaf doesn't just mention God, they praise Him. In the song "Cassie", they say " say yes to pull the trigger". At the end of the song, she says "And I will pull the trigger", saying clearly that she believes in God. In the song "Red Sam", she says, "You are the Truth, out screaming these lies, You are the Truth, saving my life", then later she says "And I worship, and I worship, and I worship, and I worship". And plus, the mentions of God are NOT "minor". They are not ashamed of their faith in God.

Well, to put it this way, if the members of Flyleaf are Christians, they just incorporate a little bit of their beliefs into their songs, but I wouldn't just refer to them as a Christian band

This debate seems kind of illogical, given that on the article for Moseley, it is stated that she is an outspoken Atheist and it notes that she is the vocalist for an Alternative Rock band. Someone needs to make up their mind because this confusion is ridiculous. 71.156.94.2 18:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Throughout her earlier years, she was an outspoken atheist. [...] After her grandmother forced her to go to church, Mosley experienced something supernatural that brought her to God. "My life totally changed after that." That pretty clearly states that she is currently a Christian, I believe you may have misunderstood the first sentence. --64.199.239.197 01:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Min

I've silently watched this article for a while now, and there seems to be no end to the debate on whether or not they are a "Christian band" which has raged on this page since the release of their recent album. Therefore, unless we have verifiable and reliable sources saying that they are a Christian band (perferably from the horse's mouth), the classification should either be removed or rephrased accordingly. We are, after all, a tertiary source and are not a hub for unreliable, original views and research. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 01:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's this saying about ducks you've probably heard; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and adores breadcrumbs like a duck, Vegas money says it's a duck. In this case we have a band that is played on CCM radio, that is sold in Christian stores, and that writes and performs music with clear religious content. Additionally, members of the band openly profess to be Christian. It's not the place of the "horse's mouth" to argue their demographic realities -- Celine Dion can say she's heavy metal all she wants, but if they're playing her on soft rock and adult contemporary stations, then that is her demographic. I appreciate your efforts at pointing out a perceived argumentum ad ignorantiam, but the band's standing as a CCM act is well established. --64.199.239.197 00:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Min

If that's the case, then why the fuss? Cite it and the the problem will be solved (or it'll solve itself). -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They are a Christian Band. Ask them yourselves next time they tour near you. IronCrow 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Read articles on them. Lacey clearly states that her faith saved her life, and most of the record reflects that. Yeah.

FLyleaf stated in an interview that they ARE a Christian band. My sister and I had this same argument before ... She finally came to me one night and said, "You were right; they are Christians. They said so in one of their interviews." Then she showed it to me. Mosely said that they're often asked whether or not they're Christian, to which she responded, "And yeah, we are all Christians. And what you believe in really comes out in your music." With those sentences she admitted her Faith, and called the band "Christian," as well as stating the lyrics have very intentional Christian themes (even if sometimes coated with ambiguity). The whole idea of many of their songs, she went on, was about pain and suffering and making a good situation out of something bad.

• Maybe there's no doubt they're a Christian band meaning that all of the band members are Christian, but even with the many references listed here I don't believe they ought to be called a "Christian Rock" band. If you read the lyrics there is not one mention of Christ and only a few mentions of a God. Overall Flyleaf's music is very secular. eLeigh33 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are so wrong. God and Christ are basically the same person. There music is not very secular. In an interview with somebody, I can't remember who, Lacey said that "all our songs points to God in some way, form, or fasion". The song don't have to mention God's name. She could be talking to God. They even call themselves a "Christian" band. If you would pay attention to what they are trying to say, it's obvious that all of the songs point to God.

I really honestly don't see why this is still be debated. Here's a quote from Lacey, found on Flyleafonline.com -

"Lacey: "We all share the same faith. And so when we deal with the whole 'Christian band thing', we kind of think about something POD says, like, 'If you're a Christian, it affects everything in your life. So if you're a plumber, does that make you a Christian plumber?' I don't know the answer. We're a band, it's part of who we are, so it comes out in our music, and it's the fuel for what we do. And finding faith saved my life. So I'm not ashamed of it at all. And most of our album reflects that."

If anyone can find a video interview of them saying they are a christian band i want to see it. I would say they arn't till then because of the reasons already stated. And i'm sure as hell going to blow the living hell out of my copy of their cd and stop listening to their music all together if they are. (thank you who ever edited the page but you forgot genre)

I guess the fact that they have songs saying things like 'Jesus there in between' and 'I worship, I worship' wasn't clear enough? Lol. Look them up, look up interviews with them on YouTube..Lacey clearly states her faith being the reason she's alive, and that the album reflects that (like the quote I posted...), among other things. Now, they are Christians in a band..but, if you want to call them a Christian band, feel free. I'm pretty sure they don't give a crap about a label like that so much as the meanings in their songs.

-- (Different poster to above) Right. Talking/Singing about God =/= Christian Band. Christian musicians =/= Christian Band. "Christian Band" has all sorts of connotations to non-Christians, it comes over like they are going to start preaching, like you aren't invited. IMO it's better to leave it ambiguous, partially because the band choose to make it that way, and partially because the label is a major turn-off for a lot of people. Nazdakka 13:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look up the lyrics because i dont think i've ever heard those two words used. and as long as they dont go on and on about it they should never ever be called a christian(ack i typed it)/white metal band. i'll also have to check out the stuff on youtube, no idea why it wouldnt be on tbe on the official site.

Yeah Flyleaf could be referred to as ambiguous, but at the same time, they show talent in their writings. Nothing is so great or original about a band just coming out saying "JESUS LOVES YOU" all the time, you know? lol.

Or how about going straight to the horse's mouth? Lacey has said this "I wouldn't call it positive as much as much you know; I would say Christian because a lot of people consider our music hopeful and intense." source AllAroundMe 22:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Most, ok, almost all of their songs mention God and mean to present God/Jesus/Christianity in a positive light. It's funny how people will always say a band isn't a Christian band even though they mention God alot, when most of them pretty much are. Also, just because a band doesn't say "Jesus Loves You" doesn't means it's not a Christian band. To be exact, only a Praise and Worship band does that (Jars of Clay, Rock and Roll Worship Circus, anyone?). Flyleaf has more mentions of God than a band like Underoath, which is a Christian band (the members have made that clear). Other bands like As I Lay Dying, Project 86, and Kids in the Way, are all Christian bands and have alot less references to God/Jesus than Flyleaf. There's not a single band that mentions God/Jesus this much that isn't a Christian band. And don't say Creed, King's X, or U2, haha. Those are incredibly bad examples. Creed never tried to be a Christian band, they were at one point pushed by their vocalist, sure, but they weren't. King's X... Do I have to say why? U2, nah, they just do great music, and it's clear only of few of there songs are faith-based. Rock music with inspiration by the Christianity of the writer or singer is Christian Rock. It does not have to be evangelical.IronCrow 01:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Does it really matter if they are Christian or not?? If you like the music, see them in concert or buy their cd's what does it matter. I believe in GOD, but I do not like to be labled. Just enjoy the music and the message. Live and let live. rabbitears

Yep I agree with both of you, it's pretty ridiculous with the labels, but generally, just calling them hard rock/alt metal works, I guess. And I have to laugh at the Creed comment XD and along the lines of Scott's sex tape. AllAroundMe 08:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In an interview on YouTube, Flyleaf says that they are all Christians and that you cannot separate your life from your faith.

I don't understand where you guys get that its a christian band from the song Cassie. Yes, she says, "and I will pull the trigger", as in she would sooner committ suicide before she believed in the Christian god. This is what bothers me about the bible thumpers, because they rape and pillage everything in order to get bands they consider "cool" under the "Flag" of "Christianity". STOP!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.55.81 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm... "written on the bullet." As in, accepting God by pulling the trigger (most likely a metaphor anyway). Just read the article on Lacey Mosley, it has her entire biography on how she became a Christian and how she's proud of it. Burnedthru 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Punk?

How is this a punk band? I think this should go into the category of alt metal, if such a category exists. Gopherbassist 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude... this is a wiki. If you can make it more objective, please go ahead.Stefan McKinley 10:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant External Link Addition

From Wikipedia guidelines on what external links should include: "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

FlyleafOnline is a website that contains large amounts of information that is not found in this article or on the band's official website. A summary of the additional factual information that can be found there: Many written and recorded interviews, reviews, and articles (some of which are quoted in this wikipedia article); historical band accounts from family members; a comprehensive discography; equipment setup diagrams; official lyrics to non-album songs; a properly labeled and categorized photo gallery of nearly 5,000 images; band-quoted song meanings; various other facts and figures about such things as chart history, video shoots, producers, recording studios, record label information, band member facts, etc.

Any comments or suggestions as to why it shouldn't be put in the external links? Snake308 03:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vocoder use?

My only exposure to Flyleaf has been through secular radio airplay; both singles I've heard so far have vocals that sound heavily processed, perhaps with a vocoder. Is there any merit to this observation? (To be on topic, if there is such, it'd be worthwhile to add this info to the article...) Student Driver 05:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cassie

Are you sure the song is about Cassie Bernall? She died from murder,the song sounds more like suicide.

The song is about Cassie Bernall, not to mention Lacey says all the time when describing the song it was about Cassie Bernall. Say yes to pull the trigger, she said yes, thus the trigger was pulled.

The idea behind the song is that Cassie controlled whether she lived or dies; by proclaiming a belief in God, she was essentially "pulling the trigger". And as a side note, no, the event in the song did not occur as descibed. Jparenti 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)jparenti

Really, though, that wasn't in her control. I mean the shooter could have easily murdered her, regardless of her answer. The song is about standing up for what you believe in, Lacey said something along the lines of "What if you thought you could say no and live, but he still shoots you? You'll have to answer to God, if there is one." It's really a test of faith and if you really believe in what you profess you do. ^^ AllAroundMe 18:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Authorities?

the start says they changed their name from passerby to flyleaf from something to do with the authorities. What? or by authorities do they actually mean copyright issues, that there was already a band with that name? Cantras 23:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The song Cassie is about Cassie Bernall, but all evidence seems to point at that that exchange of conversation didn't take place, maybe someone made it up to make it feel better or something. Someone who was sitting next to her said her last words were "Dear God, dear God! Why is this happening? I just want to go home." Even her mother wrote a book called She Said Yes: The Unlikely Martyrdom of Cassie Bernall basically born on rumors of what she said. But many witnesses claim she said nothing of the sort.

The bottom-line-meaning of the song is what's important here. and there was already a band named Passerby, yup.

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyleaf-Flyleaf.jpg

Image:Flyleaf-Flyleaf.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 Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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 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 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyleaf i'm so sick.jpg

Image:Flyleaf i'm so sick.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 Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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 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 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flyleaf do you hear what i hear.jpg

Image:Flyleaf do you hear what i hear.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 Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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 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 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lacey Mosley redirect

Why does Lacey Mosley redirect to this page? As an individual artist of the band, shouldn't she have her own page? Sameer and James have their own pages, though Pat and Jared do not. However, their names aren't links to this page [the links on the article's page itself]. But, when I click on Lacey, it's the same page: Flyleaf.

Why?

Because what was previously on her page was the same thing that was on the main Flyleaf article, just maybe a few more words. No worries, I'm working on getting it started and whomever can fix it up..because it'll be my first page, full of errors, I'm certain hehe. Should Pat and Jared have their own articles? I'm not sure, but I think they might deserve them. AllAroundMe 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think they should. We shouldn't just have some of the band members with their own pages. If one does, they all should. It takes every member of that band to make the music, so they deserve it. 24.213.101.206 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree as well, but I wasn't sure. I know some member pages for certain bands were deleted due to information that wasn't already featured in the main article or whatever (like Lacey's), so I'll try and pull some things up for their articles, too. AllAroundMe 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, just because one or more members of a band have their own article does not mean that they all should. If there are not enough sources of information on members, then their articles are very short (like Sameer's and James' are now). Really, they should be part of this article until they merit their own. A section on 'band members' would suffice to have a paragraph or two on each without need a separate article. Just my opinion though. --Chuck Sirloin 16:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Genre Argument

One the most common arguments about any band is what genre they fit into. Ask 100 different people, fans or not, and you will likely get at least 50 different answers. SO, stop arguing about it and changing it back and forth. The only genres that should be listed are ones for which there is a direct source which states "this band is (genre)". Any other genre changes should be reverted. --Chuck Sirloin 13:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this will likely start a sh*t-storm, but I changed the genres to agree with a source that I found. Feel free to change the genres IF you can find a better source such as an interview or review, but NOT one from a fansite. --Chuck Sirloin 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop Changing Genres

If whoever keeps changing genres reads this page. Stop now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.68.91 (talk) 06:34:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

If whoever left this comment reads this section: Read the article. Read the Talk page thoroughly. And if you have a useful contribution, add it. jparenti —Preceding comment was added at 08:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why erase Christian

They are a Christian band, quit changing it to suit your agenda. The truth is the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.104.22.182 (talk) 18:36, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

-->Because "Christian" isn't a musical genre. You could possibly argue to add the genre "Christian Metal" but you would need evidence. It seems we are now only accepting genres with evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.253.160 (talk) 10:41, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

--> "Christian" and "Gospel" are considered genres. But, I wasn't listing Christian as a genre, but an adjective of the band, besides Christian is used all the time to show its a form of an established genre. An example: Mary Mary is referred to as a Christian R&B group. Christian is either an adjective of the group: Christian "R&B" group or could be considered the genre "Christian R&B". It is proper to also to say that Mary Mary makes "Christian R&B" music. Besides "Christian Metal" is a genre, "Christian R&B" is a genre, "Christian Hardcore" is a genre and "Christian Alternative Metal" is a genre. And, if "Christian Alternative Metal" isn't an official genre 'yet', then Christian can at least be used to describe a band and not part of the genre.

Either way its valid right where it is, or at least should be a in a sentence after the "Alternative Metal" genre sentence like: 'They are a Christian band.'

Also, new genres are being created all the time. There is no organization in charege of making genres. You have a weak argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.22.182 (talk) 16:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

--> I think its fine how it is. You were right, it did need christian written in the article before Alternative Metal, but I doubt that it needs to be added under genres in the band profile side thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.253.160 (talk) 07:52, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

How about this

They are 5 christian people who make great music influence here and there. And they got some amazing lyrics. Can we end the genre dispute now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.65.199 (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's stupid to argue religious dogma over a band that so many people on here obviously enjoy. Stop the constant edits proclaiming Flyleaf a Christan band. And to all you Christians: It's not a mortal sin to enjoy listening to a band that isn't labeled "Christian" in bold letters. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jparenti (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"We all share the same faith. And so when we deal with the whole 'Christian band thing', we kind of think about something POD says, like, 'If you're a Christian, it affects everything in your life. So if you're a plumber, does that make you a Christian plumber?' I don't know the answer. We're a band, it's part of who we are, so it comes out in our music, and it's the fuel for what we do. And finding faith saved my life. So I'm not ashamed of it at all. And most of our album reflects that." Lacey Mosley.

Does anybody actually read the discussion page before they edit?? She says herself it's an undecided issue. Leave the "Christian band" argument alone already!! jparenti 11:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Lacey said this - " I would say Christian because a lot of people consider our music hopeful and intense." article AllAroundMe 06:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyleaf's Cassie

Many people believe Flyleaf wrote the song Cassie referencing Cassie Bernall of Columbine. However, according to a friend of mine who has spoken in person with Lacey Mosley (Flyleaf's lead singer) this is not the case. According to his conversation with her, she wrote that song referencing a girl who tried to kill herself by dousing herself in gasoline and lighting herself on fire. But at some point, she changed her mind and did not want to die, and began desperately praying, saying "don't let me die". As to whether or not the song was written about this girl, I believe really only Lacey can answer that question. As to whether the girl actually set herself on fire and lived, i think it depends on personal belief whether you believe it happened (unless some of you know her.) Either way, People should not have to experience such conflict that would lead them to suicide, and Cassie was killed in cold blood. I think both that nameless girl and Cassie Bernall should be kept in prayer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalashnikova74 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friend got it mixed up a little bit, the Flyleaf song "Tina" is about the girl who attempted suicide. "Cassie" was indeed written about the Columbine shootings. AllAroundMe 22:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have their album but "Tina" isn't on it. Where can I find this song? Is there a site where I can listen to it or see a video? I look up videos from flyleaf a lot but I don't recall seeing one for this song. Kalashnikova74 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's being sold anywhere anymore but if you look it up on YouTube you can hear it. (and on FlyleafOnline when the site is back up) AllAroundMe 21:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Agenda

This article, like all of Wikipedia's entries, is intended to be based on facts, not made-up ideas. I'm referring to the constant back and forth bickering over the Christian/Not Christian argument. Let it be made perfectly clear: All information must be cited. If you do not have a definitive source, stop changing the genre. Cite it or leave it out. This is an encyclopedia, not an Internet based pulpit for you to shout religious beliefs as loudly as possible at those who are genuinely trying to find information. What you think, feel, or heard from your preacher and Aunt Myrtle is not a valid source. This isn't a forum for religious agenda. jparenti 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to get involved in the edit war here, and hopefully I'm not being violating WP:DICK but both sides appear to be very biased, you want no mention of Christian for genre others do. But although you are correct in that WP wishes to be an encyclopedia, not everything needs cited (Wikipedia:When to cite). When I look at band pages, most I come across have no citation for their listed genre and it really only becomes a point of contention when one attempts to label a band as Christian. I wish there were a single word genre for 'we are Christians in our private lives but do not feel a need to label our music as such' but there is not. I think people need to calm down a bit here, it is just a label, it has nothing to do with the music and weather or not a person likes it (unless a person bases their musical tastes on personal beliefs held by band members). Flyleaf as it seams to me claim to all be Christian, their music/lyrics have pro-religious overtones, and they have been sold by a Christian label. All of these things added together make it reasonable to list them as Christian metal(or whatever), for me it is the fact that they were sold in a Christian market that puts it over the edge. If a band chooses to sell as Christian by Christians for Christians, then they have placed themselves in a Christian genre and the argument should be over. --65.27.208.196 03:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact SRE Recordings is part of INO Records which lists Flyleaf as one of their artists still [1] and they are a Christian label with a desire to deal with Christian bands [2] everything I can find about Flyleaf indicates they are a Christian group of people (which I don't think is up for debate) and they associate themselves with Christian labels and by doing so make themselves a 'Christian band'. More than just their associations, is their lyrics, yes many bands do have religious imagery in the lyrics, flyleaf has very specific religious references:

• "And all these twisted thoughts I see, Jesus there in between"
• "And I worship"
• The song "All Around Me" is all about God
• The song "Cassie" is about someone voicing their belief in God leading to their death and it ends with the singer claiming they would voice their belief in God as well. "I will pull the trigger" --65.27.208.196 05:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, genre disputes do not only come up in a Christian/non-Christian setting. Some artist/band pages even have a 'disputed genre' section. Also, your examples (the list) are original research, lyrics are inherently ambiguous at the very least. That does not mean I don't want to label them Christian, I think there is plenty verification for that. But I don't really care, I just like to hear a girl scream. -- Pepve 09:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me a citation. Once again, this is all being based on what the lyrics "sound like" to an individual. It's not important what we think. What's important is what we know for sure. And we know for sure that Flyleaf is not classified as a Christian band in any source cited in this article. I'll admit, it rankles me as a non-Christian to have the Christian label shoved down my throat when I say I like this band. But I'm trying very hard to support my position without becoming fanatic. I think everyone can agree that no source cited in this article mentions Flyleaf as a Christian band. QED. jparenti 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A subphrase was added today stating that they are Christians (but not labeling them as a Christian band). With that a source was added which completely backs up the statement. I just like to note that this is a good direction we're apparently moving in. And off topic: I — as a non-Christian, as atheist as one can be, denying anything remotely supernatural — am not rankled by liking a Christian band. In the same way that I can enjoy the majesty of a baroque church. -- Pepve 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link, for two reasons. One, the information was in the wrong place in the article. Whether or not they are Christians is irrelevant to the genre, and it was located right there in the first sentence. Two, the site is not a source reliable enough to warrant changing this article. (The 700 Club? Come on. How about a REAL source?) jparenti —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, for two reasons. One, if something is in the wrong place it should not be removed, it should be moved to the right place. (Even though I think it wasn't in the wrong place, it didn't state anything about their genre, it stated something about their beliefs, very clearly.) Two, the source is plenty reliable. It is a clear piece with quotes by Lacey Mosley about their beliefs. (Also, The 700 Club has nothing to do with the cited article, right?) I'd appreciate it if you could re-add the material. -- Pepve 14:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First, to Pepve: Sorry about removing the post from this page. I was actually trying to add something, and I think I screwed up when I saved it. Oops. Second, the link I removed was to a heavily biased site that is not affiliated with the band. The views contained there cannot be trusted as reputable. Therefore, I will not re-add the material. Also, the information doesn't solve the genre problem. I'm actually working on a solution now that I hope will be satisfying to everyone. Stand by. Jparenti 05:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There. Check the article and see if the new section helps. I sincerely hope that solves the problem that's been causing so much bad sentiment. Jparenti 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me, I'm glad with your solution. A small note though, it's a bit much on the quotation. But that's for the future. -- Pepve 10:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I figured that I could start it, and anyone else can add on. Personally, I don't think it needs more of a mention than that. But any more information on the subject has a nice cozy home now. Hopefully there won't be any more disagreements. And to whoever added the pic, bravo! The article really needed it. Jparenti 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the band themselves full claim to be a christian band, the lyrics and themes of the songs point towards it. I think that the "Christian" needs to be re-added in front of the "Alternative metal" in the opening sentance of the article.Tomozaurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.176.39 (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No more editing wars please. This issue is, as far as I can tell, resolved and I think we need to give it a rest. The compromise is working fine and has been for over a month. The "Christian" term is discussed in the article. Unless you're prepared to cite a reference )other than your opinion) which gives good reason for changing the first line, leave it alone. Jparenti (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rerelease information added to article

Added new rerelease to discography section. I figured it was relevant, since the new version of the album is SLIGHTLY different, what with the acoustic tracks and all. I linked it back to the album article, since that article already mentions it. If it looks wrong let me know. Jparenti 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian rock

Just so nobody changes it I added Christian rock to the Genre because the said that there not ashamed of their faith and that comes out in there album and that is what every Christian rock band does. Her exact words were pretty much if them being Christians make them a Christian band than she guesses they are, if a plumber is a Christian is he a Christian plumber? She says they are a band, and they always list their genre as alternative or metal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.47 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, if only that was how it worked. In fact, the genre of this band is heavily disputed. And Wikipedia has a policy for these matters: Wikipedia:Verifiability. In short, it says that such material has to be attributed to a source. It is not that I do not believe you, it is just that our opinion does not matter when writing an encyclopedia. So I will revert each change to the genre of this band which is not attributed to a reliable source. I'm sorry, but please find a good source and use it. -- Pepve (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well that's to bad though its good to know that someone is makeing sure that this artical does not change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.47 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I got some proof I went to the Christian rock artical and it says "There are multiple definitions of what qualifies as a "Christian rock" band. Christian rock bands that explicitly state their beliefs and use religious imagery in their lyrics" and what I said was a basic version of that so I'm changeing it back until further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.222 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with that 'proof'. Wikipedia is not a reliable source (especially not for itself) and your conclusion is original research. Let me state Wikipedia's policy in short: only write stuff that you have a (reliable) source for, and then attribute the statement to that source. Thanks for your effort though, I appreciate it very much. -- Pepve (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the proof from wikipedia and you give me crud about wiki policy but its from this site so what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.222 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you just saying Wikipedia is not reliable sorce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.222 (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of Christian rock to the genre box again, it needs a source. I would like to ask anyone who has a reliable source for this statement to go ahead and add it. Thanks in advance. I'm sick of this. -- Pepve (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think you need proof that they're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.222 (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read this section: WP:PROVEIT. Thank you. -- Pepve (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm just not going to do anything about it anymore because I don't have to talk to a bunch of people who don't know what their doing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.77.128 (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you not understand? Unless you have an article/video/sound recording or anything that proves that Flyleaf is in fact a Christian Rock band, you cannot just go ahead and change their genre. Wikipedia is for supported facts only. Burnedthru 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really care about this stupid debate but in the artical wich they say in a interview "We're not ashamed of our faith and that comes out in their music and a discription of Christian metal is metal with some christian value in it so that is proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.33.172 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not start this edit war again. This was settled for a long time, and it still is. You need proof, not your opinion. I've changed it back again, and will continue to do so if necessary. Jparenti (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE GIVEN SO MUCH PROOF!!!LOOK,In the artical in Christian faith it says "We're not ashamed about our faith and it comes out in our music" SO THAT MEANS THEY ARE NOT ASHAMED AND IT COMES OUT IN THEIR ALBUM AND WHAT MORE IS CHRISTIAN METAL THAN STORIES ABOUT CHRISTIAN LIFE AND ABOUT FAITH! GET IT IN YOUR HEADS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.235.118 (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You must find a source that says so, not your opinion. I added that section in the article, and I know exactly what it says. Do not start a screaming match or a fight over this. And sign your comments with 4 tildes please. Jparenti (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Well at least you don't make such a big deal of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.235.118 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, i'm just saying this before the next edit happens. I have a few pieces of proof that makes them Christian rock. 1.In the artical of the lead singer it says "Lacey personally considers Flyleaf to be somewhat a "Christian rock band", while not as positive, but hopeful and intense"And a nother reason.2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.235.118 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit war has gone on long enough. No more harsh words, no more edits. The citation has to be something a little more considerable than, "personally considers somewhat". No one else has seen that quote as being enough to change the article. Jparenti (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well how about reading the THREE citations that I added sourcing them as Christian rock, instead of mindlessly reverting?Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles you are referring to speak of them being Christians, not a Christian band. Until you find proof directly linked to Flyleaf that says they are a Christian Rock band leave the correct genre alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.241.102 (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Much like other bands, some of Flyleafs songs ARE influenced by their religion. Religion is a part of their life. However, writing a few songs with religious sentiments does not make them a religious rock band. Amy Lee of Evanescence mentions God numerous times in lyrics and interviews, however, EVANESCENCE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN BAND. Christian rock bands do not leave room for doubt that they are Christian. The fact that we can debate whether Flyleaf is Christian is proof enough that they probably don't want to be labeled as Christian rock. As far as their lyrics go, all of their songs can be interpreted in different ways. Interpretation is a core part of any artistic work. It's completely subjective, and because someone interprets something in art does not mean that it's fact. Furthermore, it's best just to leave the genre alone. If they were a Christian rock band there would be no cloud of doubt surrounding them. Also, if you look at the page you'll see that they are a part of the "Bitch We Have a Problem" tour. Obviously, they aren't going to be on stage singing amazing grace to the crowd. Xenosagian (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As inappropriate as this may be, amen to that.  :) Jparenti (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2008

I would like to encourage those of you that wish to change their genre to Christian Rock to find a source to back that up that isn't a fan site, or merely something speaking of them being Christians. Christian is their religion, not their genre. The fact that we can argue about this speaks for itself. If they wanted to be labeled a christian rock band they would do so. They ALWAYS list and introduce their genre as alternative rock or metal. Lacey would not have responded she didn't know the answer and that the only way they are a Christian band is if them being Christians makes them one. Christian rock bands do not leave any room to doubt, and they list their genre as such. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the fuck are three sources listing them as Christian rock getting ignored? This is absolutely ridicolous, I've never seen such a lack of logic and common sense before.

• "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band"[3]
• "Like jumbo shrimp or civil war, "Christian rock band" can seem like an oxymoron. After all, rock and roll has always been the devil's music, and Jesus surely wouldn't approve of the sex-and-drugs lifestyle. So why is the Christian band Flyleaf playing on this year's Family Values Tour with Korn, Deftones, Stone Sour and Bury Your Dead? Did some booking agent make a terrible mistake?"[4]
• "Christian Rock"[5]

Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They are christian metal! Just listen to their song Cassie, and don't give me any crap about "Just because one song is Christian metal doesn't make them a christian band" because they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.146.211 (talk) 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

HELLOOOOO

In case all you "mightier than thou" editors hadnt noticed, VH1 isnt exactly a "fan site." In addition, Flyleaf is listed there as...dun dun dun....CHRISTIAN! Stop changing the genre. I dont know what the problem is, but it says it right there. On a music site. FLYLEAF IS CHRISTIAN. Just because they may be played on secualar radio, does not make them nonchristian. Take Switchfoot, Relient K, etc. You may always hear them on secular radio, but turn on the Jesus music for once. OH, AND. It has both christian rock and alternative metal on there as the genre. Why cant people just leave well enough alone? And why are you so scared to say that Flyleaf is Christian....? ElisaEXPLOSiON[[user talk:ElisaEXPLOSiON|talk.]] 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Because those editors are self-hating Christians.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And now the whoe thing has been blocked. Awesome. Did you get what you wanted? <fontcolor="#FF0000">ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple, because all three of those articles are intended to say they are Christians, not that their genre is Christian rock. I can list dozens upon dozens of sources saying the are metal. All those articles are based off of the quote of her denying the fact. If they were a Christian rock band they would list their genre as such. Try looking on their official homepage, see if you see Christian rock anywhere.

I just used all the major search engines and conducted a search on Flyleaf. I done it for two hours straight and did not come across one place listing them as Christian rock. Look for yourself, literally everywhere lists their genre as Alternative, metal, or heavy rock. If we are going to start changing everything because we can find a couple sources that support that I hate to see what Wikipedia will look like. Everywhere that sells their music, lists a biography for them, etc., etc., etc. lists their genre as alternative rock. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like your blind because I just posted three examples earlier in this discussion:

• "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band"[6]
• "Like jumbo shrimp or civil war, "Christian rock band" can seem like an oxymoron. After all, rock and roll has always been the devil's music, and Jesus surely wouldn't approve of the sex-and-drugs lifestyle. So why is the Christian band Flyleaf playing on this year's Family Values Tour with Korn, Deftones, Stone Sour and Bury Your Dead? Did some booking agent make a terrible mistake?"[7]
• "Christian Rock"[8]

Cmon get your head out of the gutterHoponpop69 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow dude, you are an idiot. Those articles are based on the statement of Lacey's where she denies being a Christian band and speaks of the plumber. How can you act as if you are right and like your three sources trumps dozens upon dozens upon dozens of articles that say they are an alternative rock band. Including their homepage and myspace. You can't be this stupid. I can see where the article needs to say that some ppl label them a Christian rock band because they are Christians, but certainly not their genre changed to a false one. lol you even make the first sentence Flyleaf is a Christian... WOW how do you function, I bet you have shit running down your legs. Flyleaf 833 (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL - 3/4 of the previous editors to this section should take some time to review the policy. --Onorem♠Dil 01:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

THIS NEEDS TO END. RIGHT NOW. No more ad homniem attacks. No more cursing. No more nasty comments left on user talk pages (thank you again for that, ElisaEXPLOSiON). This is a matter than can be solved by looking at the sources. According to the majority of the editors here, no information can be found labeling this band as explicitly Christian. You have not assumed good faith, you have been uncivil, and you have been quite unprofessional on the talk page, on the history page, and on editor's talk pages. Stop it now or you will be blocked from editing. All I have to do is contact an admin. I won't do it now, because I have some faith in you guys to resolve this like intelligent people. Keep up the discussion, lose the harsh words, and find some sources that everyone can agree on. Please? Jparenti (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to Jparenti: You do not own this article. You will not tell people what to do, you're just irritating the situation. Second, the message left was not nasty, just angry. Granted, I should have been more civil, but you seem to think that you either own this article, or you are the only one that edits it. You won't listen to others' comments, because apparently only your opinion counts. Not only did we have the VALID sources listing Flyleaf as christian, we also had them listed as altenative metal so you would stop whining about it. But, yet again, expectations were dashed. Who knew? ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ElisaEXPLOSiON, you're argument is extremely weak. Do you not understand that you have those three sources that are based off of the plumber statement (her basically denying the fact) the walmart source even lists alternative rock as the genre if you actually click on the cover, then you have literally every other article online saying they are alternative metal including their official homepage and myspace? How can you honestly, and in good faith expect three sources to trump hundreds? This is an encyclopedia and therefore should only contain factual matter. Please answer. 76.177.241.102 (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Do what you will if it makes you happy. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"According to the majority of the editors here, no information can be found labeling this band as explicitly Christian."- You are completely and utterly inept, I keep explicitly giving you my THREE sources (compared to the ONE for Alternative Metal) and you continue to ignore them, not even acknowledging them. This is the last straw. I can not work with someone as stubborn as you. I'm going to request a mediation.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, as soon as the protection is lifted I will personally add sources stating they are alternative rock until you tell me you have had enough proof. Conduct a search yourself, 99.9% lists their genre as alternative rock, metal, or heavy rock. You see you have those three sources that are some how supposed to trump hundreds. Sure does make sense huh? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I love how some people think they own Wikipedia. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 15:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you show your "hundreds" of sources. Furthermore three sources is more than enough to back something up.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how to do this properly but I'm going to try to list some of the sources supporting alternative rock. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] I just wanted to add a few of the ones I found. If anyone would like more sources to back up the alternative rock genre let me know. This didn't even put a dent in the ones I found Dwrayosrfour (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of these are not valid or don't back up your claims: [19] is a pure volume site which is maintained by the band themselves, and therefore is not thirf party information. [20] doesn't even mention alternative rock. [21] says Hard rock not alternative rock. [22] does not mention alternative rock. [23] is a user edited site and is therefore invalid. [24] this is a ring tone site, it is not a valid source on music information. [25] lists them as pop/rock. [26] lists them as alternative metal [27] does not mention alternative rock. Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[28] Does list them as alternative rock, you have to scroll down the page.

One thing for certain is none of those places mention Christian Rock. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But these ones do: [29][30][31]Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I've filed a mediation for this argument. If you would like to be in on it please sign up here.[32] Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't want to make enemies on here. I just know that we've been down this road before, and it was solved in a civil manner. If you read the previous posts on this page, you'll see that. I propose a truce between us, and I hope that the mediation will solve this, for either party, once and for all. Jparenti (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You people can say whatever you want about them but, every person I've ever met that knows about flyleaf says their a christian rock band and every one that I know that doesn't know about them will be told they are christian rock and most people who like them wont come here because its so dang obvious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.146.211 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. Hoponpop69, this is the second time I've encountered you trying to label a band as "christian". They are Christians, sure. Nobody is arguing that. But they are NOT a Christian band. On their Myspace page, which THEY control, they have listed themselves as just "rock" [33]. On their band page they say absolutely NOTHING about religion whatsoever.[34] I think that makes it quite clear that they are not branding themselves as a "Christian rock" band. I don't understand how you continue to argue something that is so objective. Are you suggesting that bands can't even choose their own genre's? That's absolutely insane. Flyleaf is NOT a Christian band. The foundations on which you base your argument are weak, and clearly fall when pitted against the ones of those who disagree with you. You can be Christian, that's perfectly fine, no one is trying to take that away from you OR Flyleaf. But wikipedia is not an outlet for people who are trying to spread their religious beliefs. Imposing your religion onto every band that mentions Jesus, God, or Christianity is not only ignorant, but is also against the basic principles of this site.Xenosagian (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all in terms of genre a myspace page holds no credence, get that through your brain! Second of all I'm not even a Christian so you just made a fool of yourself in your analysis of this. Let's wait and see what the mediation deams to be reliable sources.Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright the first mediation fell through, here is were the cabal one will be Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-03 Flyleaf. You can go there to discuss this.Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. I'm not going to sit here and exchange insults with you. That is not what this is about. I believe that a page that the band created themselves holds the utmost of credence since it was created by the band themselves. Other sources can say what they want, but what the band says should outweigh anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenosagian (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More Sources For You To Try And Explain Away. Note that these support their genre falling into the Alternative category

[35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rick Parasher"

This should read Rick "Parashar". Pxlt (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shortening of Discussion Page

This page is extremely long, and contains a lot of things that I think can be removed. I am not going to remove anything relating to the current genre debate, only things that are just taking up unnecessary space. Xenosagian (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive rather than remove please. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a better look at [42] Album summary of YOUR source

"A buzz began to circulate over Belton, Texas, quartet Flyleaf when the band's debut EP first made the rounds. Fronted by singer Lacey Mosley, the band generates an enormous sound that draws on elements of nu-metal, screamo, and ALTERNATIVE ROCK'."

The other two sources you found do not list their genre as Christian Rock either, they merely make reference to them being Christians. That is clearly what they mean when they said Christian band. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, take a better look at[43]

They call them a Christian band both times they describe them. In case you are not aware of this, Christian is not a musical genre but a religion. The only time this article mentions Christian Rock is when they mention it to be an oxymoron.Dwrayosrfour (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

According to you I am blind so you had better check this out for me. It appears to dumb ole blind me that here [44] when VH1 does actually state their genre they label them a Heavy Rock Quintet Why don't you use your 20/20 vision to show me where it says Christian Rock. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Chillout dude. We can debate without it getting so personal.Xenosagian (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes please take a look at that it stats that their music DRAWS ELEMENTS OF THOSE genres, yet at the top of the page it lists the bands genre as Christian rock. In the VH1 article it must be dumb old blind you because that vh1 page is not even the article I had originally linked to. Stop distorting the truth or I won't acknowledge your statements.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record this was the page I had linked to [45] and it clearly says "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band. But they're not ashamed to admit it."Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, on the vh1 link you provided, this statement "...Christian rock band. But they're not ashamed to admit it." Goes on to show that it is based off of the plumber statement. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But yet you did acknowledge my statements. I never said it was the link you provided, I said it was VH1.

WOW, LOOK HERE IS WALMART STATING THEIR GENRE AS ALTERNATIVE ROCK

[46]

I hope you are right about the committee deeming walmart a reliable source. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More Sources Supporting Alternative/Rock

[47] [48] [49] [50] Dwrayosrfour (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Data Evaluation

Seeing how we are trying to reach an agreement on which genre Flyleaf falls under, I feel we should categorize the information we have and evaluate the said information in attempt to reach some type of consensus. I feel that neither side has been specific enough regarding how we would like to see the article written, or genre(s) agreed upon. So far here is the sources we have supporting either side.

Sources supporting Christian Rock

[51][52][53]

Sources Supporting Alternative/Rock/Metal

[54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] Dwrayosrfour (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is laughable, for god sakes one of these links is myspace! Second of all please seperate these by which genre they back up instead of putting them all in one big non-existing blanket category.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH.

Guys, this is getting ridiculous. There are obviously way more sources out there that say Flyleaf is Rock/ Alternative. In light of that fact, I think everyone would be better off to just stop arguing about it and put that in the page. It's juvenile and immature at this point, and we aren't getting anywhere. Furthermore, Hoponpop, you took drastic measures by leaving a comment on someone else's talk page, but signed it as Dwrayosrfour. That not only is deceitful and unethical, it is against the rules, out of hand, and unfortunately, ya lost brownie points on that one. : ( So, I guess that's just the way I feel, and if that's the majority consensus, then maybe we could tell an admin and get back to editing the page LIKE THE MATURE ADULTS I KNOW YOU ARE. Anyways, have a good day : D elisa^talk. 13:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up one thing. Hoponpop didn't try to deceive anyone with the comment left on User talk:Jparenti. He simply moved a comment that Dwrayosrfour had mistakenly left on User:Jparenti to his talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 14:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, it looks like I trusted the wrong party in this case.... elisa^talk. 15:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

God strike me dead in my tracks if I made that comment on Jparenti's page, either page for that matter. I didn't know it was there until he asked me about it. The only person I asked for help is Elissa. My little brother stayed with my wife and I last week. I'm not saying he did it, I'm saying it is a possibility. I will ask him, he may have been trying to help me. He knew I didn't know how to list sources because I told him about it. He is only 12 so he may not know the difference between the user and talk page. If you remember I said "the funny thing is there is a lot of truth in that comment" In fact it was all true. Anyways, hoponpop, I apologize for falsely accusing you. Based on some of the things you have said, I jumped to conclusions. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I found this reference: It's hard to be humble rock stars, but members of Flyleaf manage fine The Daily Times which indicates they are often called a Christian band. Could this be used for a compromise wording? Something along the lines of: "Flyleaf are an alternative rock band, that are sometimes described as a Christian band"? Addhoc (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if that will help or not. The problem is that just means they are Christians, when they are called a Christian band. Because Christian is not a musical genre. I personally think the article is fine the way it is. The CHRISTIAN FAITH section is sufficient in my opinion. This was an issue in the past and was solved in a civil manner, the product being the current article. Seeing how "hoponpop" is the only one that has a problem with the genre being Alternative Rock/Metal I think an administrator should be called in to deal with him. He is (was) the main participant in the edit war. It seems that everyone else has reached a consensus. However if others want the article to say they are sometimes labeled a "Christian Band" I do not have a problem with that. I don't think that type of content belongs in an encyclopedia, but I am not going to nonsensically revert the statement every 5 mins. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above? Any dissenters? elisa^talk. 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Xenosagian (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree Flyleaf 833 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree, wholeheartedly. Jparenti (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not no. You are all being ignorant and ignoring multiple valid sources that I have provided. I can't wait to laugh in your faces when I am proven by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that I am right about these being valid.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

HAHHAHAHHA! I've had this article on my Watchlist for some time now and have seen the Christian > Alternative > Christian edits almost every day for maybe over a month now. Finally decided to see what this is about. It's gotten to the point where the controversial header has been added... Really who cares what they're labeled as? Why do you (Hoponpop69) want their genre to be changed so badly? I like them as a rock band and only thought them as Christian (merely in religion) after listening to "Cassie." Like the others said, if their religion is so significant then there's a whole section dedicated to it. Burnedthru 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to let everyone know that I have 18 more sources supporting the Alternative/Rock/Metal category. So if anyone wishes to see more sources let me know. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see them but I'd like you to say which one reprsents which genre.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the one with the perfect vision, figure it out for yourself. By the way they support the current form of the article. Alternative Rock/Alternative MetalDwrayosrfour (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article in the beginning because I like this band. I cleared up a misconception by removing Christian metal/rock from the genre. I thought I was helping. I was apparently mistaken. This ridiculous argument has gone on way too long. For people like me, we wanted the article to reflect reality rather than a common perception. (The band members themselves don't use the Christian moniker, because they don't want to pigeonhole themselves. See their MySpace blog.) The editors who want the word Christian in the article appear to not care about any source they dislike, or that disagrees with their view. Why is it so important to include that we ignore the band's own view of themselves? Is it so important that we can yell, leave nasty or uncivil comments, impersonate other editors, lie about our own comments, etc? I don't know what everyone else has done for sure, but I've been personally attacked and called a self-hating Christian, an idiot, a liar, a cheater. All because I edited a single line in a single article that said something I knew that was false, and backed it up with citations. Go ahead and fight if you feel like it. The page looks fine to me right now, despite the parts even I dislike, and I think everyone can agree that it does its job -- it tells a little about the band and leaves sources for the included information. And I don't own Wikipedia -- we ALL do. It's up to all of us to put this silly fight behind us and get on with our editing. Is it really worth all this hatred? Jparenti (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, then....

In total agreeance with Jparenti, I think we should inform an admin that we have reached a consensus. Hoponpop: I don't know why you are so adamant about labeling the band Christian, but seeing as everyone involved in the above discussion minus you has agreed to label them as alternative, I think you have no choice. Furthermore, if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia after the unblocking of the article, an admin will be informed, and you will subsequently will be blocked. Thanks everyone, elisa^talk. 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am adamant about labeling the band as christian rock because reliable sources say so. Why re all of you ignoring reliable sourced information? I can't fathom your reasoning.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, not that I hold much hope of achieving a compromise, would you be prepared to settle for something along the lines of "Flyleaf is an alternative metal band, that is sometimes described a Christian band"? Addhoc (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, as long as the genre is one of those listed in the infobox.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin analysis

Okay, glad to see that you guys are finally talking constructively. Out of curiosity, why would be the problem with including both alternative rock and Christian rock? It seems that there are at least partially reliable sources that support both. I realize that most people in this discussion seem to have agreed that the primary genre listed should be alternative rock, but as an impartial observer I don't see anything particularly wrong with listing Christian rock as a secondary. Would anyone be opposed to this? If so, please explain. GlassCobra 18:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems totally appropriate to me. elisa^talk. 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what I wanted all along, but others are refusing this.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am completely against it. They are not "Christian rock", they are simply people who make music on a wide variety of subjects. They have songs about drug addiction, alcohol, inadequacy, and yes, religion, but that does not mean they should be given the title "Christian rock". Because Flyleaf only has one full-length album, I don't think we should rush to conclusions about them being a Christian rock band. Evanescence's first major album mentioned God as well, but their second didn't at all. Who is to say that Flyleaf won't do the same thing? It's the beginning of their career, labeling them as religious could be crippling to both their career and the message that they are trying put forth.Xenosagian (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes no difference, relible sources are reporting that they are a Christian rock band, and that is all tha is important. As far as your comment that " labeling them as religious could be crippling to both their career and the message that they are trying put forth" please familiarize yourself with this [82].Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Hoponpop. We are not the ones labeling them here, we are merely attempting to find out if reliable sources have reported them this way. It is not our decision whether or not they are Christian rock. Also, I find it extremely hard to believe that how they are classified on here would have any effect on their career and/or message whatsoever. To leave out a genre that can be properly sourced simply because of a personal disagreement would be against WP:NPOV and WP:OR. GlassCobra 00:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't care if Christian rock/metal was in the genre box. My concern is that it's incorrect. I felt that the band's opinion was the most important, and they themselves have trouble with this issue. The blog entry I read written by one of the band members came to the conclusion that they are a group of Christians who make music, and that they shouldn't be strictly classified as a Christian band. As far as adding the genre of Christian, I don't think it's a problem. It should be listed as secondary to alternative, since the fact that they fall under the category of alternative is undisputed. If the facts become more clear in the future, I think it could be addressed later. For now, let's list both and be done with it. That seems to make sense. Jparenti (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I keep telling you that the bands opinion is not worth squat, as it's a first party source. Do you understand?Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoponpop69, you're not being logical. "Reliable" sources can say what they want, but there is no source more reliable than the band itself. Furthermore, since you seem to be getting caught up in technicalities, who is to say when a third-party source is reliable at all? Is that not completely arbitrary?

Example: Person A's favorite color is blue. Person B, who just met Person A a few minutes ago, tells Person C that Person A's favorite color is yellow. Later, Person A tells C that his favorite color is in fact blue, not yellow as B said. Would it make sense for C to go on believing what B said even though A, the source itself, says otherwise? That is what this argument boils down to.

A large amount of Earth's ancient history is based on hearsay or theory. But when new crystal-clear evidence arises, logically, historians change the history books to display the new evidence and do away with the old. Whether Flyleaf is a Christian rock band or not is not so clear, but because they haven't outright said that they are, it's unfair to base a factual article off of something that has yet to be proven. Xenosagian (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenosagian, the band itself is a primary source. WP:RS says that articles should be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources." This very same guideline also happens to define when exactly a third-party source is reliable; so no, it's not completely arbitrary. Furthermore, you're also attempting to boil down the issue into clear black and whites with your metaphor, which is not the case here. It's clear that even the band themselves have struggled with their genre classification, as evidenced by Jparenti above referencing a blog from one of the band members. My compromise, then, would be to list alternative rock as a primary genre and Christian rock as a secondary. Then, in the lead sentence, adopt Addhoc's suggestion: something along the lines of "Flyleaf is an alternative metal band, that is sometimes described a Christian band." GlassCobra 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, with the exception of including it in the first sentence. No reason to overstate it. Maybe adding a question mark in the genre box next to Christian alternative would suffice, wouldn't it? The first paragraph certainly doesn't have to declare that they are Christians, since it's a rock band, not a spiritual figure. Jparenti (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. If there is so much controversy surrounding this subject, I wouldn't overdo the 'Christian rock' thing. As long as it's in the genre box, everything is fine. elisa^talk. 13:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've got an idea that will end this debate for GOOD. I think we just leave Christian in he list of genre's until someone just go to a concert and ask lacey a simple yes or no question about it, that way everyone is happy and this ends for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.185 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you retarded? We've said a million times before including TWICE in this section that whatever genre the band says they are is not worth anything.Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor your comments. --Onorem♠Dil 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. A consensus will be reached. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The band is totally what they say they are and no website can change that. Or a moody User. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.185 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC) So anyway, is that idea any good? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.185 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth I want the article to remain in it's current form. Why are we going to all of this trouble for one person? Am I the only one that has actually looked at these sources that supposedly support Christian Rock? The sources themselves are reliable, I agree with that. Now the content within the source is another story. You have to have a bad case of tunnel vision to get Christian Rock out of those sources. Here is what I am talking about.

Take a better look at [83] Although it may say Christian Rock at the top of the page, if you actually click on the album cover it says "the band generates an enormous sound that draws on elements of nu-metal, screamo, and "alternative rock" doesn't mention Christian rock. Also if you just search for Flyleaf on walmart.com you end up in the alternative section like here [84]

As for the VH1 source

It says "Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band. But they're not ashamed to admit it." Then goes on to show you that they are making reference to the plumber statement. Therefore they merely mean that they are Christians. They clearly mean Christian...Rock Band, as in they are Christians. Because look here [85] you will see that when VH1 actually describes the bands genre they call them a Heavy Rock Quintet.

As for the news day source.

They call them a Christian band twice in the article. Which is merely making reference to them being Christians, because Christian is not a musical genre. The only time they mention "Christian Rock" is when they refer to the term as an oxymoron.

Hoponpop is the one that wants to rely on third party information, and 99.999% of All sources list the band's genre as Alternative rock/Metal. For the record, hoponpop saying that what he wanted the whle time is Christian rock to be the secondary genre is false. His version of the article had the very first sentence "Flyleaf are a Christian..." and had it listed first in the genre box. As long as this is an encyclopedia I will never agree with Christian Rock being in the genre box. I think the article in it's current form is factual, like it should be. A genre with a question mark beside it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The people who want to rely on third party information are not only me, but the admin who gave his opinion, and the rules of wikipedia.[86] You continually ignore wikipedia rules no matter how many times you are told you are wrong, I hope you get banned you ignoramus.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I too want to rely on third party information. All the sources I myself listed were third party. If we listen to third party information, then they are without a doubt an alternative rock band. It is funny that you speak of wiki policy while simultaneously calling someone an ignoramus Dwrayosrfour (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the users who have made an intelligent contribution to this discussion have reached a consensus. Therefore, I move that the article be unprotected and the genre box changed to reflect Christian alternative as a secondary genre under alternative rock/metal, and that mentions of this secondary genre be left out of the first paragraph, as it is not primary information regarding the band. I'm really tired of listening to one particular user heap insults on myself and anyone else who tries to speak. We're ready to agree, and someone keeps dredging through it all over again. Jparenti (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the genres listed (with sources) should be Alternative rock, Alternative metal, and Christian rock. Again all these should be sourced.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to provide A single source that definitively says the band is Christian Rock, I have proven that. You can't just have someone calling them a Christian band, Christian is not a genre. There are multiple problems with all three of the sources. Namely the fact that they contain conflicting information within. I'm not going to repeat the problems, I just can't believe that no one else has actually looked at these "sources." I don't think consensus has been reached, because I will never ever agree with Christian Rock being in the info box until someone lists a source that definitively says so, the source can't call them a Christian band and on the same page state the genre as Alternative, or heavy rock. Wiki policy states "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." That statement alone wipes out all three of the Christian rock sources. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, when you actually look at those sources they support alternative rock more than anything, they are in no way definitive. 69.63.89.206 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hoponpop69, and like I said before "We should leave Christian rock in the genres until someone go's to a concert and askes them if they do christian music" what can you say that is a better idea then asking the members themselves! its not like you can get a better sorce anywhere else. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.185 (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Not agreed. The band is a primary source, and someone asking them and coming here with the answer would be original research. We need to use reliable third party sources, with an eye on any WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE concerns. --Onorem♠Dil 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, that's a dumb idea. I think a consensus has been reached, however, and editing may resume? elisa^talk. 17:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, Wikipedia is just one website that not many people visit mostly editors do. What is said on this site wont effect anyone else who likes them. Say what you want but I'm right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.79.86 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that they are Christian rock and my reson is writen in the following. In the artical of Christian rock it states that "Christian rock "is a form of rock music played by bands whose members are Christians and who often focus the lyrics on matters concerned with the concept of the Christian faith" And in the section of their christian faith it says "We"re not ashamed of it all (They say "It all" In refrence to Christianity) and that comes out in our album." So if that doesn't say it all what does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.79.86 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So, who is going to let us edit this page again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.34.164 (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be User talk:GlassCobra, when consensus is reached. You can ask him to edit the article for you, as long as it has nothing to do with the current genre issue. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But nobody said I'm wrong about it so it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.34.164 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on, Just let people edit again. It can't just have one person manage a whole artical you can't keep up with it forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.77.9 (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we've reached a consensus that Alternative rock and christian rock should be listed. Can the article be unlocked?Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Rock needs a source before it is put in the article. The ones you list have several problems, all three contain conflicting information. Two of the sources actually say they are alternative, the other only calls them a "Christian Band." Before you can label the band Christian Rock, you need a valid, definitive source to back up your claim. I proved that all three of your sources fall way short of this. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Two of them clasim them to be both christin rock and alternative rock, there is nothing wrong with that, a band can be multiple genres.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Those two even go to show you that they are basing that off of the plumber statement. You can't have a source that says something that can be interpreted a certain way if you try, and on that same page it clearly stating the genre as something else. I showed you where when both places actually listed their genre, Christian rock is nowhere to be found. Do you not understand that the sources must be definitive? Your sources merely call them Christians, everyone knows they are Christians. That is why there is the Christian Faith section. Before you can shove your own opinion down a bands throat, you need a definitive source backing up this claim. This is an encyclopedia, not the Bible. If we are going to go around labeling every band that mentions God we have a ton of work to do. When 99.999% of all sources say one thing, you can't find one source that kinda sorta backs up your claims in a certain place within the source and then goes on and agrees with the other 99.999% in a definitive way, and expect to make a substantial change to the article based on that. It simply doesn't work that way. This is an encyclopedia, and is a place for factual matter, not original religious research. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am blown away by all these ppl letting you push them around. You are the only one that is not happy with the article in it's current form. You don't have to look back very far in your history on wikipedia to see you have an extremely LONG history of personal attacks, vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, you have made DOZENS of personal attacks on others. You have been warned I don't know how many times, and have been blocked more times than I can count using all my fingers and toes. An article can be factual, and the entire community be happy with it, then here you come with your personal vendetta, and agenda i.e. personal attacks, vandalism, sock puppetry, etc. I'm saying this because I feel it is relevant to this situation. You do this everywhere you go, and it needs to stop. You can't keep going around putting your opinions in articles, and causing trouble everywhere you go. Every band that has anything to do with Christianity you try and change their genre to "Christian." I for one, refuse to let you bully me into making Flyleaf's article contain false information. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

CAN'T WE PLEASE JUST AGREE, AND UNLOCK THE ARTICLE? elisa^talk. 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for the claim that that the band is of the Christian rock genre? Twenty Years 17:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

not that i can find. here shows the bands view on their genre. That might not be a reliable source, but there aren't any that show that they are christian rock, more of a crossover. Hence the Christian Faith section of the article. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For the millionth times here are two sources right here [87][88], and also for the millionth time what the band thinks their genre is has ZERO bearing.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and for the millionth time the VH1 source merely says they are a deceptively Christian....rock band. Do you not know the meaning of deceptive? They mean you would not think they are Christians. There are two major problems with that source. After they say the word Christian, they go and show you their statement is based off of the plumber statement. Then here when VH1 actualy does state their genre they call them a Heavy Rock Quintet. As for the Walmart source, on the exact same page in the album summary they do not even mention Christian rock, but do say their music draws from different elements including alternative rock. When you just search for Flyleaf on walmart.com you end up in the alternative section like here Dwrayosrfour (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The vh1 source says " Flyleaf are a tattooed, loud, deceptively Christian rock band".[89] It does not say they are a "christian...rock band" stop distorting the truth. The Wal Mart source lists Flyleaf under the Christian rock genre at the very top of the page.[90]

Finally bands can be listed as a multiple genres, you seem to think because these sites also mention other genre they cancel the Christian rock genre out. It doesn't work this way. Look at the wikipedia featured music articles here[91]. Almost all of the bands that have a featured article are listed as having multiple genres. Christian rock can co-exist here with other genres.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of websites that say they are not christian only say so because most of them aren't christian sites so they don't mater. I bought their CD in a christian store and if their not christian metal then why are they in said store? The only reason so many people think their not in the christian genre is because they aren't christians, what they say doesn't aply to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.77.211 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian rock?

I think we may be overanalyzing things here. From some of the comments here, certain people seem to think that Christian rock is actually some kind of different music altogether. Christian rock defines itself as "a form of rock music played by bands whose members are Christians and who often focus the lyrics on matters concerned with the concept of the Christian faith." Would anyone argue that this does not apply to Flyleaf? GlassCobra 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering only a portion of their songs fall into this category I hardly think that is fair. If that is how it works we need to go around all the articles about musicians and change their genre to fit their personal lives "atheist rock" "Jewish Rock" "Buddhist Rock" "Golf Rock" If a Christian grows a tomato is that tomato a "Christian tomato" or is it a tomato grown by a Christian? The fact that they are Christians has nothing to do with the product of their music. Christian Rock bands describe themselves as such, and third-party sources do as well. I just don't understand Wikipedia any more. I just don't understand why I've had to sit here for weeks arguing about something so black and white. I used to think wikipedia was all about using reliable third-party sources, and every single one of them say their genre is alternative rock. metal or just plain rock, not the first one lists their genre as Christian Rock. Some of them say they are Christians and that is why there is the Christian Faith. The only one who has a problem with the article in its current form is hoponpop. Have none of you looked at his contributions? He does this every where he goes. He is WELL known for personal attacks, vandalism, sock puppetry, etc., etc., etc. He has been blocked for all of those things more than once. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think saying that the fact that they are Christians has nothing to do with their songs is a gross misstatement. It's pretty clear to anyone that's listened to their music that faith influences their lyrics quite a lot. I'm not sure about the "golf rock" analogy used by Dwrayos here, that also seems quite faulty; he seems to be trying to make a big deal where there is none. While the sources we have do not explicitly list them as Christian rock, they do make a strong connection between their music and their faith, which, as the Christian rock article explains, is all that's really needed to define them as such. Is there some particular objection you have to listing them as Christian rock? GlassCobra 06:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My objection is to putting false content in the article. I can't support something I know isn't true. You speak of the Christian Rock article, you are the admin here but since when can you use wikipedia as a source for itself? Maybe it's always been like that who knows. I'm just a dumb, blind, ignorant, stupid, self-hating Christian, ignoramus so what in the heck was I thinking. The fact that you are supposed to remain neutral is one thing, the fact that when you do choose sides you support the person that violates policy in serial succession is another. I'm beginning to not care, I've lost all faith in Wikipedia. I'm going to do like Hoponpop and write a long tearful goodbye and come back as a sock, hell why not it seems to work. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be mediating here? Not throwing your two cents in. I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to pick sides while mediating. How can you say religion having nothing to do with ones work is a gross misstatement? I am a Christian, so all my work is a product of my religion, right? Please tell me that isn't the logic you are using here. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that because no sources will claim a band is "golf rock". You're comparing apples and oranges, Christian rock is a real genre, and sources claim this band belongs to the genre.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"sources claim this band..." Where are they? What are they? Why haven't you presented them? The only thing you can bring to the table is sources calling them Christians while simultaneously stating their genre as alternative rock. You find a reliable impartial, unbiased source that says their genre is Christian rock and I'll shut up. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've presented them multiple times, you just have chosen to consistently ignore them or lie about what they actually say.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Dwrayosrfour while were on the subject of Christianity, aren't you familiar with the verse "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? You rail on me for having been blocked in the past when you have been blocked yourself. Judge lest not ye be judged.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And Hoponpop, I have been blocked once and stopped the behavior that got me blocked. How many times have you been blocked, or warned about vandalism and personal attacks? I saw a couple times where you came right off a block and resumed the same behavior. In fact let us use this specific talk page as an example. I don't even want to attempt to try and count the personal attacks you have made on others. You do this everywhere you go, you try and shove your personal opinions into every article you come in contact with. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But if they have a few songs with christian values in them then it should be in the genre's. for example, If their is a rock band that has three rap songs on their latest album then you should add Rap to their genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.67.241 (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for outside comment

Comment by Landon1980

Ok, I have read this discussion in it's entirety. I am a bit surprised this didpute has went on so long, this all seems pretty cut and dry. I don't see a problem with listing multiple genres, a lot of articles on Wikipedia list multiple genres. However, I think that before Christian Rock is listed someone needs to find a source to back this up. The two or three rather sources that are being used fall short of explicitly putting them in the Christian Rock genre, they seem to support them being Christians and their genre to be alternative rock. There is nothing wrong with the sources themselves per say, they just simply don't back up the claim. I neither know nor care whether Flyleaf is Christian Rock. I think everyone can agree that before a genre is added to any article it needs to be properly sourced. So to sum this up: Either find a source and list both, or leave it the way it is. I can see a need for a section in this article to be dedicated to their Christianity. Anyone thought of that? Would this solve the problem Nevermind, I didn't realize there was already a Christian Faith section. Landon1980 (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't these explicity state that they are Christian rock: [[92]] [[93]]?Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something the two sources in question support Alternative rock. The VH1 source merely refers to them as Christians, the Christan Rock statement is folollowed by they aren't ashamed to admit it and shows you the statement is based on a quote of Lacey's in which she says they are Christians, not a Christian Rock band. As for the walmart source, they list Flyleaf in the alternative category except for this one page that only says "Christian Rock" at the top. Then in the album summary they describe the band's genre and do not mention Christian Rock. As I said, the source must explicitly state their genre as "Christian Rock." Those two sources are useless, no one is disputing the fact they are Christians here; at least not that I saw. Landon1980 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Landon, the sources may not be explicit but in this case they don't have to be. 75.125.163.147 (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do, assuming doesn't work. — Κaiba 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also I don't think Landon is a good outside source, in his incredibly short edit history, his few edits all deal with removing Christian rock from other pseudo Christian bands.[94] In fact seeing as he just joined the site two weeks again and already is weighing in on things like this leads me to believe that he may be a sock puppet of someone.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoponpop, my edit history is not at question here, that is completely irrelevant. I have been a wikipedian for years. In the past I edited from various IP's from the university I attend. I became sick of receiving irrelevant warnings for things I had no part in. Don't worry, I'm sure others will weigh in. Landon1980 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Users that endorse this summary

• In theory it is a problem to call a band 'Christian Rock' when they actually aren't. A source is preferred for this kind of genre label, or unless it is very obvious and can in fact the obviousness can be demonstrated. In the case of dispute - get a reference! Rfwoolf (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• The references that state 'Christian' do not explicitly refer to them being Christian rock and obviously even if there was one source that says they are, one reference doesn't outway the thirty or so references stating otherwise. — Κaiba 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• You're incorrect. Multiple genres can be listed. Also they are specifically referred to as Christian rock in both sources.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaiba is referring to the VH1 and Walmart surce, they do not explicitly state their genre as Christian Rock, they merely call them Christians. Multiple users have showed you the problems with those two sources. If you have sources that explicitly label them Christian Rock you need to present them, things like this must be cited with a reliable, definitive source. Also this section is for users responding to the RFC, this isn't a place for you to attack the newcomers. You are deeply involved in this dispute, this is for people new to the discussion. Landon1980 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

All I wanna do is edit the article, but we can't even do that yet, because you guys can't agree. elisa^talk. 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Very many groups with Christian themes are listed as being both Christian and mainstream. They are not mutually exclusive groups. Royalbroil

Can we at least try to muster up some maturity about the situation? elisa^talk. 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we just need people to try to agree on something. I think their Christian rock but I'll agree with anyone as long as we can edit again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.34.221 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We could do it sorta like the Anberlin artical, that way it would have Alternative metal in the genre's and Christian rock but next to Christian rock it would say Disputed with a link to the section of Christian faith that way on one is wrong=] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.34.221 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That would work if someone can find a source that explicitly puts them in the Christian Rock category. Anberlin has a reference for the disputed Christian Rock. Either way it needs a reference before it is added. The fact no one can find one says a lot. The only sources presented on the Christian side of the debate merely refer to them as Christuians, and that is why Jparenti added the Christian Faith section. I too wish this could be resolved, I am tired of fighting over something so black and white. But I don't undestand what is so wrong with the article that all of you keep saying "I just want to edit it" " I just need to edit it" "Anything as long as we can edit the article" You all need to take the problems you see to GlassCobra and let him fix them. Everyone has agreed except for Hoponpop69, we need to move on. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about Sorces? We've been showing you sorces one after another and you keep asking for one? Do you actually read what people say on this cause you keep bringing it up! And it is disputed because that's what we are doind right now so it fits the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.145.232 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"WE" Who are you a sock of anyways? I'll admit to having a hard time reading what you write, but that is it. The only sources I have seen are the ones Hoponpop presented that say they are Christians, which ones are you talking about? I'm referring to the walmart and VH1 sources. You can't use sources saying they are Christians to justify Christian Rock. You need a source saying they are "Christian Rock" not Christians. MULTIPLE ppl have pointed out the problems with those two sources, have you read THAT? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dwrayosrfour, I would suggest toning down your comments before getting blocked. In addition, insulting GlassCobra will get you nowhere, I guarantee it. Here are your long-sought-after Christian sources: [95],[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102],[103]. Need more, come ask me. elisa^talk. 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No I don't need more I just need one good source that explicitly puts them in the Christian Rock category. I am a bit surprised at most of the sources you tried using, like 'wikianswers' 'angelfire' 'blogsites' The others call them a 'Christian Band' and for the thousanth time that means they are Christians, Christian alone is not a musical genre. Take a look at WP:Source then go back through the sources you just presented, that strikes out all of them except for a couple calling them Christian, or a Christian Alternative Rock band. All the actual sources that have been found that can actually be used do one of two things, label them alternative rock, or label them alternative metal. You and Hoponpop keep presenting sources that say they are Christians, why are you doing this? We all know they are Christians, the article has a whole entire section dedicated to their Christianity. If we can use the kind of sources that you used I can add around a 1000 more if you would like, literally at least several hundred. Oh and Elissa, don't threaten me like you always threaten other editors when you don't like what they are doing. You are the same place on the totum pole as I am around here. If GlassCobra wishes to block me he knows how to do it, that is his decision not yours. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to threaten you, I am simply warning you as a fellow editor. I have seen it happen before. And seriously, when have I threatened other editors? I thought you and I had gotten over our differences when you came to me about how to even add sources. In addition, christian band does not mean they are simply christian. I really don't understand where you get that definition. They are labeled in every single source as Christian alternative or hard rock. Christian rock is a genre, believe it or not. Just because they tour with non-Christian bands has no bearing on their genre. All I want is for everyone to agree on something so we can edit the article again. What's wrong with the newsday article? It explicitly states that Flyleaf is Christian. Or what about the sputnikmusic review, which is clearly a music review site? It states the genre as explicitly Christian rock. I just don't understand what the problem is. All we have to do is add one of these sources, put Christian rock in the genre box, and add disputed next to it. It's really that simple. As long as we have both genres in there, I figured everyone would be happy. elisa^talk. 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I can be cranky at times, I am sorry for that. I am back at work as of today and I no longer have the time to argue about this. As long as the first sentence isn't "Flyleaf is a Christian..." I am fine with what you suggested. Put Christian Rock at the bottom with disputed linked to the Christian Faith section and use the sources you found. I said the whole time if someone would find a good source I would shut up, so consider me silenced. I doubt very little Hoponpop69 will agree to this though, he would revert this consensus as soon as he is off his block whnever that is. His version of the article has the first sentence "Flyleaf are a Christian" and Christian Rock at the top above the others in the infobox. That is what I have a problem with. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as well, I too am against putting the sentence in the article. I just think it would be good judgement to at least acknowledge that they are referred to as a Christian band by putting the genre in the info box. Thanks for your time. elisa^talk. 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask what is wrong with the Walmart source?

It explicitly lists the band in the Christian rock genre.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are joking. Read the album summary. They merely list it under that category because they realize some ppl label them like you. The album summary lists three or four elements their genre draws from, as you know it does not mention Christian Rock. I knew you would come right off your block and resume your old behaviour. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa! You're making a huge leap in saying "They merely list it under that category because they realize some ppl label them" that is blatant original research! The fact is that the site clearly says Christian rock as the category. I have never NOT acknowledged that the site lists other elements that their genres draw from, again a band can encompass multiple genres. No need to be so bitter.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't list other elements, it lists THE elements it draws from. If WALMART thinks it draws from Christian Rock why did they not list that as one of the elements? Why are you still arguing about this? Everyone but you have reached a consensus. I guess you have a problem with what we decided though right? Imagine that. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BECAUSE IT ALREADY LISTS IT AS THE BANDS GENRE! DOESN'T THAT SEEM MORE IMPORTANT THAN AN "ELEMENT IT DRAWS FROM"?

MY CAPS IS STUCK.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it is. I'm not arguing with you about this any more. That source can't be used, period. Elissa found a much better one to use. Why are you still trying to cause disruption? All you are doing is keeping the article locked by not agreeing. Wouldn't you rather have it in there the way everyone has suggested instead of not at all? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, on the main search they list the genre as alternative rock if you just search for Flyleaf. Then when you click on the album summary it lists alternative rock as an element of the genre. How do you explain that? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have already resolved the issue; we are going to put Christian Rock as a genre in the info box, with 'Disputed' next to it. This should solve any problems. elisa^talk. 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)