Talk:Christian rock

message: The critiques of Christian Rock music are understandable, but are we as Christians not allowed to have our own kind of entertainment?  We watch G and PG movies such as Finding Nemo and Napolean Dynamite, which have no references to God in them.  So why should our music be any different?  It is our way of not conforming to the world's way.  We can look into our CD collection, and enjoy the kind of music we like knowing that the messages in them will not bring us down in our faith or go against our Christian values. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.152.21.198 (talk • contribs) .
:When editing on User Talk or Article Talk pages, please sign your name using four tildes  ~~~~ when making your posts. I would also suggest that you consider creating an account for yourself. I hear what you are saying, but what do you suggest we should do about the article? MPS 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added your examples of "bands that contain Christians but are not generally considered Christian Rock" in a new section entitles Multiple Definitions of "Christian Rock" bands. Just so you know, the talk pages on Wikipedia are not for just plain talking, but are intended to help editors talk about what needs to change/improve in the article. If you think the article is AOK as it is, then there's not much reason to talk here. One thing I think defines this article is what the point of Christian Rock is. Is it for entertaining Christians? Is it for evangelism to non-Christians? Is it a form of music created by Christians just for fun with no other point? Is "Christian Rock" be something that is written so people can play it/sing it in a church setting? If you can add to the discussion of the  different ways people think of Christian Rock, I think that's what needs to be added to the article. MPS 15:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This sentence is currentlu being removed from the article: "Other bands merely claim to have members that are Christian"
:Does this mean that bands are claiming to have Christian members, but in reality do not? Are there really Jews, Muslims or Hindus pretending to be Christian in order to be known as a "Christian Rock Band"?  I would think that when band members identity as being Christians, they are most likely being honest.  On a second point, I have never heard of any Christian rock band ebing identified as such merely because its members are Christian. Is ELP (Emersom Lake & Palmer) a Christian rock band because its members were Christian? Of course not. Finally, these groups do not preach a Judeo-Christian point of view. They preach a specifically Christian point of view, including the belief that Jesus is the messiah.
Can't we just say "Christian rock is like vegetarian meat" and be done with it?
I am also wondering about the inclusion of Chevelle as a band of Christians. They swear in Vena Sera. And also- It takes some liberal interpretation to say that the lyrics are explicitly Christian. If interpreted from a different viewpoint, this might be seen as conforming to that specific viewpoint.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.238.242 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad spot to include this. They were signed to a Christian music label in the late 90s. I suspect that is why they are included. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: sentence removal

message: Does anyone have any objection to merging this article with Contemporary Christian music? The distinction between Christian rock and CCM is fairly arbitrary, as far as I can tell, and there's no consensus as to which bands belong to which category (though I'm sure some bands would categorize themselves one way or another).
:-Rholton 02:47, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)
:CCM covers only those groups within the CCM fold, maybe it is more obvious with C punk/C metal where there is less mainstream Christian appeal, but there is a distinction that should probably be maintained. Probably the article could be clearer on this. Paul foord 13:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Oppose. Christian rock is distinct. CCM is primarily pop music. Christian rock is primarily rock music. While the label can be broad and you will find some bands or artists with their feet firmly planted in both camps, others would feel at home under the banner of CCM. Keep this group separate. --Walter Görlitz 18:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Strongly Oppose. I was gonna write exactly what Walter said, too. CCM=pop, CR=rock and other related genres (punk, metal...). CCM is stuff that generally older Christians enjoy, while Christian Rock is generally what Christian young people listen to. They are totally different from each other. There's quite a difference between say, Amy Grant and Underoath! EdGl 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, Amyoath... Anyways, CCM is general contemporary music that's Christian. Rock may be contemprary, but not in the music scene. Hard to explain. Jars of Clay is CCM, but also a rock group. Think of CCM as a big group of light, easy-going, pop, soft rock, Amy Grant, Jars of Clay, 4-Him stuff. Christian Rock is more like Day of Fire, Pillar, etc. IronCrow 02:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Contemporary Christian music]] ? 

message: I thought that Evanescence distanced itself from the "Christian music" label, or that Christians distanced it from that label... ugen64 01:30, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:They have. Although I believe that the main singer is a Christian as well as other band members, they have specifically stated that they do not want to be known by this category. Actually...check their Wikipedia entry, haha. -Dave 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you're soooo ridiculous for posting that. We know they aren't a Christian band, but... They have Christian members and use Christian imagry. Say that again now. IronCrow 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They need not be Christian rock to be awesome. Christian rock may not be the best, but it is definitely not the worst. If it was, they wouldn't be selling records now, would they? Some Christian artists have sold more albums than many secular acts. :) Happy Wiki-ing, folks! aJCfreak yAk 08:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And that's an example of an excellent editor, people. Thanks, TaylorLTD. It takes a lot more than plain sense to post what you did in your response. It shows what you're made of, I guess. aJCfreak yAk 07:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Meh, apologies as well. Been busy hitting vandals with a stick recently, not fun. Good that you did admit it though... Unlike that one person on the Alesana page... IronCrow 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evanescence

message: I think Creed falls in line with the other person's comment about Evanescence.  Creed has explicitly declared that they are not a Christian band.
Creed should be removed from the list...  The only person who even claims to have had a Christian background was singer Scot Stapp, whom, if you have seen the news reports about him lately, you KNOW he is not a Christian.  Besides, Christian bands don't use profanity in their lyrics, while he has... - J.B.  03/22/2006
:Creed and their members (one may not be, who knows?) are Christian. The band is not. Simple. IronCrow 02:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creed 

message: It would have been more appropriately to have an article entitled "christian band" verses "christian rock band".  But with that said, it's pretty commonplace to hear people refer to "christian rock" and "christian rock bands".  That given, it is fair to have an article entitled "christian rock band".
:Title changed to Christian rock, to be consistent with Christian metal, Christian punk. Also turned many red links to blue. Paul foord 12:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "christian band" vs. "christian rock band" 

message: These pages are very messy, and some artists are not categorized correctly (to those who actually listen to the music).  I've done a little cleaning up of the layout of the pages, but much more needs doing.  I may try cleaning up various other pages (CM Rock artists, for instance, need cleaning up).  There should be a CCM Pop (CCM stands for Contemporary Christian Music, and I feel does NOT stand for Rock, as many people do not concider rock a part of CCM, but rather Christian Music in general) page for artists that are explicitly Pop/Contemporary.  There should also be some expansions into Christian Hard Rock, Hip-hop/rap.
:I think that the entire list needs to be relocated to a List of Contemporary Christian Musicians or something. Lists of this magnitude are not supposed to be in articles on genres. A few examples may be appropriate, but by no means a long list. -Dave 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Major Edits 

message: I looked a little, but couldn't find where he was accepted as a part of a "Christian rock" band/group.
:This article is not about CCM, he is a Christian whose music was informed by his faith. Therefore OK here esp when Midnight Oil appear on the list of CCM rock musicians (probably incorrectly). Paul foord 12:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Garrett  

message: Evanescence has, in my opinion, distanced themselves from the Christian label by their behavior -in both dress and language.  Creed's lead singer (Scott Stapp?) has come out and stated his blatant Christianity ( http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2004/scottstapp-0804.html ), but not necessarily Christianity for the band.  Alice Cooper came out and said he'd embraced Christianity, and it shows in his lyrics, but not necessarily in his stage presence (google search for "alice+cooper+christianity").  U-2's Bono is flaunted by many as a great Christian singer who's accepted in the mainstream, but I have doubts.  His language can be quite as "flowery" as Ozzy Osbourne's. Ognyen 03:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding the Christian Label 

message: 12 Stones also expressed that they are not a "Christian Band", but Christians in a band. I am removing them from the list.
*Ummm... a lot of bands on that list don't call themselves a "Christian Band". However, their lyrics come out with Christian themes, therefore they stay on this list. EdGl 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 12 Stones

message: Is the eqiv. of the Plat record a murr album in christion rock?
Never heard of it, besides, band such as switchfoot and Reliant K have produced platinum albums. Saksjn (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Murr Album? 

message: I alphabetized the bands to the best of my ability so it's a little easier to browse.  Today, I also went through all the bands and singers in that section and linked them to their wikipages.--MaskedScissorDoll 13:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hope you don't mind...

message: I see earlier that some people opposed combining this page with CCM, but there are still some redundant sections. It seems to me that Christian Rock is just a genre of Contemporary Christian Music, and that redundant parts should be left to CCM (e.g., criticisms). Anything that's in Christian Rock and isn't in CCM should be moved there. (e.g., evangelistic goals). Meanwhile, we could have a section header that says "criticisms", but links to criticisms under CCM (I'm open to other suggestions too). This is a problem with some other Christian music categories too (e.g., Christian rap). -Patstuart 00:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Partial'' Merge with [[Contemporary Christian music]]  

message: There's no discussion on the talk page about why these templates are present, and the article seems fine to me. The "globalize" template is unnecessary, but Christian rock is a phenomenon primarily centered in the United States and, to some extent, British colonies. The NPOV template seems unnecessary because the article is section is already painfully sanitized "some critics..., some critics...". So I'm removing them. 64.178.96.168 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  globalize, npov templates 

message: I'm sure it reads better to the religious people to claim Lennon just said The Beatles "were bigger than Jesus" but if you even look at the Beatle wiki page you will see the full comment, with the "more popular than Jesus" taken out of context.204.73.103.253 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with the quote used? Christians at the time were very upset that he said that, regardless. IronCrow 02:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's largely due to Christians at the time mnisunderstanding what he was saying as the quote was taken entirely out of it's context in the Cleave interview. In 1966, if you offered the choice to a teenager "Want see the Beatles or go to see a church choir perform?" which do you think a majority would likely have chosen? Lennon was commenting on what he was seeing from his side of the situation, folks bringing crippled kids to see the group backstage as though they might be healed by being in the presence of the group. That is the way it came off to them as documented in interviews taken at the time. It's not much of a jump in reasoning to come to feel that he (Lennon) and the band were being treated as though they were gods. They knew they weren't, hence the comment's at least partial motivation. The other intent was to comment on how the church was 'losing' the younger people. If one compares church attendance today to back then (1966) there is a marked decline in being involved in a public way. I don't totally agree with him, Christianity will not totally pass away most certainly, but it is not a popular position to put oneself into by taking a Christian POV. I also realize this comment is way after the fact, but even in 2007 it would have been easy to see this trend.THX1136 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lennon comment 

message: I see far too many articles whose infobox says simply christian rock for the genre.  C'mon!  "Christian" may identify the lyrical content, but "rock" is far too broad to describe the musical content.  Similarly with categories—:Category:Christian rock albums is not good enough.  Please, let's try to do better! ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of "Christian rock" as an umbrella term or universal term. Yes, there may be "Christian Pop Rock" or "Christian Hard Rock" band or whatnot, but they are still Christian and Rock nonetheless. Though I do agree with you on that it is used without referencing the subgenre. IronCrow (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian Rock is a culture, not a musical style. Use it only to describe a bands status in the Christian Rock community. Then, list the genres they play. Personally, articles such as Christian Punk, and Christian Metal shouldn't exist, since they fall into the Christian Rock culture. Saksjn (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. I doubt anyone dresses "Christian rock" or is a "Christian rocker." There's Punks, Rockers, metalheads, etc. Christian metal is very much different than mainstream Christian music when discussing genre primarily because it is a seperate movement, much like the Christian Punk of Straight Edge movement. See the Christian metal page.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very true my friend. I should restate myself... the culture line between Christian Rock (and punk, metal, alternative, etc.) and the rock culture is thin as far as dress and attitude. The only real difference is the lyrical content and the attitudes regarding drugs, sex, and alcohol. Other than that major point they are very similar. It is however a distinct entity from CCM and mainstream rock. Although with the rise of indie music and the fact that CR no longer sucks is making that line between it and mainstream smaller. At the same time... the cultural differences between CCM and CR are growing larger... both attitude wise, dress wise, lyrical wise, and the ways they relate to God. Saksjn (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  an appeal for proper genre classification on album articles 

message: Isn't it about time we started our own wikiproject so we can improve the articles? Some of our articles are pretty bad. Saksjn (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm split on that. While Christian metal and Christian Punk are movements as well, Christian Music wikiproject has the Christian Rock thing covered. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Currently, the Christian music WP seems good enough. aJCfreak yAk 05:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Rock WikiProject 

message: Would anyone have a problem with me doing a very major re-write in the near future? Saksjn (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind at all. I would so it myself, but I'm having a difficult time with my internet. Have at it. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  major rewrite 

message: The image :File:Tooth and Nail Records logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:WelcomeToParadiseStonehill.jpg
*:      File:WhatADay.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Tooth and Nail Records logo.png

message: I removed the bands Onerepublic, Angels and Airwaves, and Alter Bridge from the list. Onerepublic has one Christian member (for sure, maybe more.), Angels and airwaves is not a Christian members, and I don't really know if Tom is a Christian. Alter Bridge, I dunno. Ein 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of bands. 

message: Does anyone else feel this section
:He Touched Me was a 1972 gospel music album by Elvis Presley which sold over 1 million copies in the US alone and earned Presley his second of three Grammy Awards. Not counting compilations, it was his third and final album devoted exclusively to gospel music. The song "He Touched Me" was written in 1963 by Bill Gaither, an American singer and songwriter of southern gospel and Contemporary Christian music.
is a little OT and also poorly phrased (particularly in the lack of flow from the previous sentence)? From what I can tell "He Touched Me", is considered an example of gospel music, and not rock music or Christian rock. As Elvis Presley was an early and highly notable icon of rock music it may be worth mentioning he was also notable for his gospel music but I don't think it needs to be so long. Perhaps something like "However Presley also produced 3 albums devoted exclusively to gospel music, including one which sold over 1 million copies" Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elvis Presley 

message: "It has been argued that some Christian acts are controversial because they do not meet the Fundamental Evangelistic Association's criteria for a truly "Christian" song: must be doctrinally and politically correct, and contains no syncopation."
The very last word: "Syncopation" What possible reason could they have for disagreeing with syncopation?? - Brando2600174.112.230.127 (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the kind of thing that kills houseplants. Seriously. They say ( / said?) that. For a broad discussion I would recommend reading the book Apostles of Rock (), specifically pages 31 - 37 (startt at "Oppositions"). Dan, the CowMan (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't know why you put your new question at the top. They usually go at the bottom. Why are you asking about jazz drummers in the Christian rock article? If you want to understand what objections conservative Christians have in regards to to syncopation, I suggest you try to find a copy of Bill Gothard's late 70s or early 80s Basic Youth Conflicts manual, which was later re-branded the Institute in Basic Life Principles. The main idea is that syncopation and rock music are evil. However a great many Christian educators and musicians refuted the point, showing how even Bach used syncopation. Petra branded the argument that rock music was "of the Devil" as heresy. In scripture, God is the only one who has the ability to create. They would then enter into their remake of the song "God Gave Rock and Roll to You". I don't know if Gothard reversed his position later or if he still holds to it today. The question isn't whether syncopation is evil or not, it's whether people believed (and possibly still believe) that it is evil. So according to this teaching, of which Gothard is only one proponent, Jazz musicians would be evil, but the teaching has been convincingly refuted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this mean most Jazz drummers are evil? 

message: I have deleted the image File:WelcomeToParadiseStonehill.jpg from this article because there is no non-free use rationale on its page for the use of this image here. WP:NFCC#Enforcement states that:
*"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added."
There is no need to delete the image file, which has a rationale for use in one article, but this image cannot be used here until a rationale is added to the image page justifying its use here. If someone constructs a valid rationale then it can be used. If we don't delete it (or fix the rationale) a bot will find it eventually and do so.--SabreBD (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it again since it has a Non-free media use rationale and marked your actions as vandalism. It is free for use anywhere on Wikipedia just like every other image in this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for putting a rationale for the use of this image on its page. It is now legitimate to use this image on this article.--SabreBD (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not blaming you, but it's one of the stupidest things about Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't disagree with you there.--SabreBD (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of image

message: Well excuuuuse meeee! I thought this was an article about Christian rock music. If it keeps going the way it is, we might as well list King David as the first Christian rock musician. He had a rock. He played music with lyrics about God, the very same God of Christianity. Judiasm eventually led to Christianity. Ridiculous argument to make the psalms Christian rock, right? Then you should use the same logic and see what someone is trying to do here. It is just as ridiculous to keep pushing the boundaries to extend the definition of rock and roll the way David Di Sabatino has been trying to do for years. Fodder maybe for a new book? I have some really nice things to say about Mr Di Sabitino, and I am not trying to disrespect him here, but I just can't buy his reasoning. 
When Mark Allen Powell's book came out in 2002, as invalueable as we know it to be, even then readers said it was lacking, and if you want a scholorly research you would need to wait. I agree 100%. Last time I checked before I ever heard of Mark Powell from where David was quoted, the Crusaders were "gospel" . I must have missed something when they became a Christian garage band ( How's that for a new genre?)  A rose is a rose is a rose to misquote Shakespeare. That means gospel is still gospel no matter what you call it. The fact that someone published a self assertive, and often flippant opinion, or is just repeating someone else doesn't make it right or worth repeating again. 
David Di Sabitino sees no differece between Christian rock and roll and what a group of British beat boys did when they played a song about Jesus one morning in church. He also sees no difference between that or a major British Pop star who actually ministers and gives full services in a church. He thinks an American gospel group putting out a record of pop hits and some original music with Christian content and an actual Christian rock musician like Larry Norman are in the same genre.  Mr. Di Sabitino calls it all Christian rock, and I'm sorry boys and girls, it just aint so!! 
Pop and gospel are not rock and roll, and never will be! Period. I agree with Walter Görlitz on Elvis. As the King of Rock, if gospel were rock, Elvis would be the undisputed father of Christian rock, but he isn't! Today rock music and gospel often use the same instruments, so why isn't it all called gospel or all called rock? Because it isn't the same and we know the difference. 
What about Electric Prunes? Who doesn't know the Mass in F minor? Yet no one even mentions them. Why? They were a rock band that played music with Christian content. AKA Christian rock music. Were they Christians? Probably but I forgot to ask. I don't know about you, but I don't believe everything I read. I check it out, try to contact the author or the group when possible, because I really want to know, not just repeat what someone who wrote. I have contacted several authors cited in this article. it's not as hard as you think. I also spoke with some the orignial members of the Electric Prunes, who played on the recording of their Mass, and they have never claimed to be a Christian rock band because they know releasing a Christian rock song or album is NOT the same as being a Cristian rock musician. 
This article is supposed to be about Christian rock, is it not? It is not about trying to include your favorite group, or how many kinds of music you can skew into rock to suit your own purposes. I respect the Crusaders for what they did, but at best it is POP or gospel music. Cliff Richard is POP also. So is Andy Williams, Frank Sinatra and Perry Como and all the other artists who did Little Drummer Boy. You might as well list them in here too as Christian rock musicians, if you're going to buy the fantasy about gospel music. 
And has everyone forgotten that absolutely great song by Norman Greenbaum "Spirit in the Sky". You can not deny the Christian message in that. Is it Christian rock? I feel so. But Norman is JEW! God bless him. So why shouldn't we call gospel, beat or rock. or Elvis, Frank, Andy, Perry or Norman, or the Electric Prunes, or the Crusaders Christian ROCK musicians? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T. 
I found this page specifically to see where "Spirit in the Sky" fit into the early days of Christian Rock. I am absolutely STUNNED to see that it's not in the article. Please, someone with some expertise on editing wikipedia and an understanding of the importance of this song... include it because it was absolutely relevant song.
Norman Greenbaum - Spirit In The Sky (1970)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRFo72wuU6w
I for one will am not going to have any trouble removing nonsense from this article. I'm just letting you know why beforehand and hope some of you can do the same. I'm not as polite as Walter. I don't even know the guy but he sometimes amazes me the with good sense he makes,( and also irritates me occassionally with comments I consider a little off the mark, (sorry, Walter I am sure I irritate you too :-) What I am saying is I'm getting very annoyed at the ridiculous statements that should be obviously removed. Can we just focus on Christian rock and Jesus Rock, not who was in some other genre that led up to rock and roll? I agree with Walter Görlitz again, that Christian rock is a legitimate genre. Of course it is. And it is NOT a sub genre of CCM as some people try to convince you, and it is not gospel or any comnination of words with gospel in them.
I for one know what rock and roll is. And I'm telling you, gospel garage rock ( a recently made up term by some fan, no doubt) is NOT Christian rock. If it is, why isn't it called Christian rock straight up? You know why. Because when it was originally put out it was called gospel. So what excatly is goig on here?
No body wants a edit war, but if anyone is making up definitions of rock and roll, or having trouble figuring out what it is then they shouldn't try to edit this article.  We don't need to hedge the definition of Christian rock. 
All those other genres have their own articles. Can we just keep this one focused on the title "Christian Rock" ? Come on people, help me!
*before you even say anything, just in case this comment goes to the top don't blame me. I only clicked on start a new section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.144.229 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Ridiculous about Gospel ( and all the other genres that aren't Christian rock) 

message: Earlier today an anon editor added Red. I had not heard of them before this addition. I looked at their article and noticed that they were a fairly new band with only two albums to their credit. Then on my morning commute I heard a request on one of the podcasts I listen to. Again, the first time I had heard them to my knowledge and I listen to a few Christian rock podcasts.
With the revert of my revert a comment was added 600K sales Grammy nomination US chart s #15 Topped Christian charts = popular enough. First, they're still not as popular as the other artists listed there: Skillet, Thousand Foot Krutch, Decyfer Down, Underoath, Kutless, and Relient K. The highest their music charted was #15. That does not mean that they charted #15 in the year (in one chart and #1 in two others). I could be misreading the information though. They did have two number one singles which is impressive, but not an unheard-of feat. And they have sold a total of 600 000 between the two albums. The final point is that the paragraph starts: "By the late 1990s and early 2000s". They are a band from the late 2000s. Let's start a new paragraph and include information about Red and other, newer bands instead of trying to shoehorn them in with other more establish bands. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise I had never heard of them (or others in the same paragraph). Obviously we can't list every Christian Rock band here (although there could be a List of Christian Rock artists article). I agree with Walter's reasoning and recommendation.smjwalsh (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  See List of Christian rock bands and List of Christian metal bands. Looking forward to getting a copy of Red's albums in my collection. Is there who would like to create an article to reflect some of the newer bands and movements. One themes I've seen is the merging of modern worship and Christian rock. Some bands have albums of pop, rock, and worship songs. Notably Newsboys, but David Crowder Band is as well. These two bands are definitely more pop than rock though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Red

message: The Definitions section is very problematic. The most obvious is that it has no sources for the often fairly weak, confused assertions that it makes. The tags requesting citations have been on it for over a year, and no-one has seen fit to supply them. Secondly, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, so any 'definition' in the article should be there to outline the scope of the article, not explain what the phrase means. That is the job of a dictionary  see WP:NOTDIC. Ashmoo (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While uncited, those are definitions that have been thrown around. These are not dictionary definitions, they define why the genre exists and who would qualify for the genre. The problem is, there are very few WP:V sources for this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that their are no sources is indication that it should be removed as something that is Unverifiable, not that we should just ignore WP:V. I'm happy to have a broad definition at the beginning of the article to define its scope, but this section just sounds like Talk page gossip. Shorter answer: If it can't be Verified, it isn't encyclopediac and shouldn't be included. Ashmoo (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not a fact, no. Cite with citation needed templates if you like, but remove only if controversial. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifibility is one of the cornerstones of wikipedia. Specifically look at the 'Tagging a sentence, section, or article' section of WP:V. There are 'citation needed' tags already there, so I don't see what help adding more will do. The policy is to remove controversial unsourced material about living people immediately. Other material has a more lenient policy, but needs to be removed if sources are never provided (as is the case here). 10:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming good faith is another cornerstone of Wikipedia. The policy is to remove controversial unsourced material about living people immediately. The genre is not living and it's not controversial. Just adding citation needed templates is sufficient. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, we must assume good faith, which I am doing. But AGF means to not assume that editors are editing maliciously or trying to 'game' the wikipedia system. It does not mean that we can ignore WP:Verifiability. Adding tags is sufficient, but after a certain period of time, unsourced material should be removed (please read WP policy WP:BURDEN), otherwise what is the point of WP:Verifiability? Ashmoo (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad we agree. Please add the tags and next year delete anything that's uncited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are already there. They were placed in November 2009. Ashmoo (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  So we have another seven weeks. Thanks for the reminder or so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Walter, these statements have been tagged as unsourced for 3 years. Last year you agreed to find the sources within 7 weeks. I've tried to be reasonable and patient. But at some point I feel I need to just ask you to abide by fundamental wikipedia policies. Ashmoo (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions sections

message: This article defines Christian rock as 'rock music played by individuals and bands whose members are Christians and who often focus the lyrics on matters concerned with the Christian faith.'.  Now, I do not agree with the part where it says whose members are christians.
Just because one of the band members or even the whole band are christians, that does not make the band a christian rock band.
Tom Araya is christian, but you don't count Slayer as a christian rock band, Nicko McBrain is christian, but you don't count Iron Maiden as a christian band...other examples...Dave Mustaine, James Hedfield, Ozzy Osbourne, Max Cavallera...there are too many examples.
This is why I think that the whose members are Christians part should be removed.  Norum 00:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the "and". Both conditions must be true. The bands you list do not "focus ... lyrics on matters concerned with the Christian faith" and so you're right, they are not Christian rock bands. U2 is a grey area. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Granted, if the band self-identifies as Christian rock, or the Christian music industry considers them to be Christian rock, then they would likely also qualify. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're right, there is a problem. I'd even dispute the "often" part. What is "often"? And just because someone says they're a Christian........didn't Charlie Sheen claim to be a warlock with tigers blood in his veins too? I can't see where U2 is a gray area.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am just saying that it would be better if the article reffered only to the lyrics.  Norum 03:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of a christian rock 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Christian rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525062607/http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/archive_2008/0612.shtml to http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/archive_2008/0612.shtml
*Added  tag to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=7457032&blogID=356095186
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=444350
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christian rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120721220234/http://www.bdtonline.com/columns/local_story_114164933.html to http://www.bdtonline.com/columns/local_story_114164933.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100909011136/http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/arts-and-entertainment/Flyleaf-is-Mindful-of-Death-94283274.html to http://www.atlanticcityweekly.com/arts-and-entertainment/Flyleaf-is-Mindful-of-Death-94283274.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is Bob Dylan left out, Nobel Prize winner and one of the most sermonizing Christian Rock acts the world has seen? Especially his most recent album. 
Anyone familiar with the rules of Wikipedia able to add him? 
Heylin, Clinton. Saved!: the gospel speeches of Bob Dylan. Madras: Hanuman Books, 1990. 9780937815380
http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/23294719
The gospel speeches, testifying, sermons, religious raps are all essential Bob Dylan for anyone interested in Trouble No More. The religious thoughts of Bob Dylan were not what everyone expected and even today there are those who prefer to avoid them. Odd not to embrace Bob Dylan at his most talkative?
Trouble No More
The Bootleg Series Volume 13 1979-1981 (Columbia/Legacy 2017)
9 Disc (8 CDs / 1 DVD) Box Set 
2017-11-03
Heylin, Clinton. Trouble in Mind Bob Dylan's Gospel Years - What Really Happened. New York : Lesser Gods [Overamstel], 2017. 9781944713294
Pontrefact : Route, 2017. 9781901927726
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/rome-film-fest-michael-shannon-invoking-bob-dylan-trouble-no-more-1055001 
http://www.npr.org/2017/10/26/560044267/first-listen-bob-dylan-trouble-no-more-the-bootleg-series-vol-13-1979-1981 
http://blog.godreports.com/2012/10/man-who-led-bob-dylan-to-christ-says-legendary-singer-is-still-walking-with-jesus/
No album of Bob Dylan is without Christian Biblical songs. Not one!  All explicitly state Christian beliefs and use vast amounts of religious imagery in the lyrics.
EDLIS Café  15:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Dylan?  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Christian rock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112191215/http://blog.breezybaldwin.com/2009/11/europe-again/ to http://blog.breezybaldwin.com/2009/11/europe-again/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928044808/http://www.christianactivities.com/artistupdates/story.asp?ID=6918 to http://www.christianactivities.com/artistupdates/story.asp?ID=6918
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone else think we should make a template for Christian rock?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.54.195.214 (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: what kind of template? There are, navigation templates, project sidebars and others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking a template like rock music, disco, and most other genres.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C7:C201:C640:F47E:5B35:8067:73AA (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Template