Talk:Catch for Us the Foxes

message: I'm reverting the last edit, and then I'll trim stuff that's original research/unverifiable. TheRuss 04:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter portion of the article dropped 

message: The lyrical themes section was removed as it amounts to little more than original research and speculation. Lyrical interpretation is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. These are the editors own ideas for the song meanings. Unless the actual lyricist explains the meaning of a song, then such content cannot be included. A general overview of lyrical themes can be included, assuming that this section is well referenced to reviews or interviews etc. Songmeanings.com is absolutely not a reliable source. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just undid the edit of Guerillero , which deleted the Lyrical themes section, which apparently has been removed before. The reason why is because it is unfair to wholesale delete a section when not all of it in is tarnished by original research. There is definitely some original research here,For example, "Becoming the lowest would imply that there would no longer be any possibility of failing more" but there is also some attributedFor example, this sentence is quoted from a 'Decapolis' interview: "The song off our new record, ‘Torches Together,’ talks about community and coming together and loving each other." and attributableE.g., "He and former bassist, Daniel Pishock, were both born in January 1979." research. I think we ought to vote on it to remove it or, at least, remove the original research parts, but not get rid of wholesale, because there are some valuable things in there. What do you think? ~ Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  :Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The unreferenced material should be removed immediately. The suspicious material should also be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is wholly original research and does not belong in an encyclopedia article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some O.R., but not wholly. There are some references and obvious material doesn't really need to be referenced, only that which is likely to be challenged. I wouldn't complain to see it removed though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Section

message: --Guerillero | My Talk 03:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Catch for Us the Foxes. 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/20090907025050/http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2004/catchforusthefoxes.html to http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2004/catchforusthefoxes.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) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified