Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Anberlin

message: Hello. Sorry I'm a little late in making myself known here. Had a few unforseen things I had to look at elsewhere, but you now have my full attention. To clarify how this process will work. My role here is to help you both to reach agreement on the issue in dispute, not to express opinions or take sides. Hopefully by the end of this mediation you will be able to reach an outcome that is acceptable to both of you. I will try to guide you as to what issues it might be helpful for you to discuss - but this process is about you. If you're unhappy with the way things are going at any time, please let me know.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential. WjBscribe 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator comment

message: I see you're trying to get to grips with the sourcing, which is good. I've read through your past discussions. I just wanted to clarify, how would each of you define "Christian rock"? I'd be interested (and I think it would be useful to have that clearly in mind) in what you both think it is and what elements a group needs to have for its music to be considered "Christian rock". WjBscribe 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Christian rock?

message: Rock music that is generally on a Christian label, played at Christian festivals, and sold at places like Christian book stores. Lyrically with references to god and Christianity or Christian ideals, in numerous songs.Hoponpop69 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoponpop69

message: A band would be considered Christian Rock if the majority, around 7/10 or up, of thier songs have Biblical, Christian references. And I keep saying this, but does the band not choose its genre? I think the band knows if their main focal point on thier songs is Christian or not.
Pbroks13 04:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pbroks13

message: How do each of you feel about the article's content under the heading "Anberlin and Christian music"? Do you think that it should remain as is or should we consider how that section should read as part of this mediation? WjBscribe 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of mediation

message: I think no matter what happens, people should know that Anberlin does not want to be listed as a Christian Band.
Pbroks13 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pbroks13

message: And I think so to, but I also feel that despite the band not considering themselves a Christian band, many sources list them as one, they have lyrics that reference religion, and are on a primarily Christian label. I think the section Anberlin and Christianity covers this. 
The main thing I want though is to have Christian rock listed under genres.Hoponpop69 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: hoponpop69

message: OK, I've been letting talk this through because I think it was helping to pin down the issues and progress was being made. It looks like your now a little stuck. Lets see if we can recap where this discussion has arrived at. Which of the following statements would each of you agree with? 
# Anberlin does not describe itself as a Christian rock group
# Anberlin does not like to be decribed as a Christian rock group
# Anberlin is described by some sources as a Christian rock group
# Anberlin is described by only Christian sources as a Christian rock group
# Anberlin is described by a range of sources as a Christian rock group
# It is disputed whether Anberlin is a Christian rock group or not
If you could say below which numbers you agree a with (and explain why you can't agree with any statements you don't think are valid...) WjBscribe 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where we've go to

message: I agree with numbers 1 and 6. 4 is absolutely false. 
I also agree with either 3 or 5, depending on what your definition of a range is. I think we have to look at the other genre that is listed, Alternative rock. I would say that it has the same range of sources as that.Hoponpop69 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoponpop69

message: I agree with 1, 2, 3, 6. 
4: There are some sources that are non-christian websites that list them as christian, although there are much more reliable ones that do not.
5: I'm confused on what you mean by "a range." If you mean both Christian and Non-Christian websites, then you cant really compare since there are not really any Alternative websites and Non-Alternative websites. But if you only look at Non-Christian websites, then theres not too many that list them as Christian. Pbroks13 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pbroks13

message: OK, I think one of the problems is that there isn't much room for compromise between you. At the moment your stuck with either including the genre "Christian rock" or not including it and it appears unlikely that either of you will be able to convince the other. So I'd like to investigate a possible middle ground you might both be able to agree to.
I see that you've both agreed with numbers 6. Might you be able to agree to some sort of phrasing under "genre" that made it clear that the status as a "Christian rock" group was controversial or disputed? Perhaps refering the reader to the section where this is discussed to find out more? WjBscribe 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Okay, and I think they should be labled Pop, Post-Punk, Punk, Adult Alternative, and Indie as well. Pbroks13 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay cool. But, lets talk about yours. For one, yes, an article from the NY times did list them as emo, but there are other articles in there that dont, so I dont see how that is reliable at all. Secondly, for the Rolling Stones, here is the official artist link for anberlin on the rolling stones website . Where you found emo, I have no clue. But its not like it matters because Im sure you found it in an article somewhere... which there are others that dont list them as emo. So it looks like all my sorces were as reliable as yours... so how bout we add them all? No, lets not add any more than we need. Pbroks13 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forwards

message: Yeah, I think that would be fine with me, but how would you put it there while making it look good? Maybe some sort of Sub-Genre?Pbroks13 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pbroks13

message: No, there is already a whole section of the article on that. Furthermore I feel Emo should also be listed based on rolling stone and The NY Times.Hoponpop69 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Okay, and I think they should be labled Pop, Post-Punk, Punk, Adult Alternative, and Indie as well. Pbroks13 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay cool. But, lets talk about yours. For one, yes, an article from the NY times did list them as emo, but there are other articles in there that dont, so I dont see how that is reliable at all. Secondly, for the Rolling Stones, here is the official artist link for anberlin on the rolling stones website . Where you found emo, I have no clue. But its not like it matters because Im sure you found it in an article somewhere... which there are others that dont list them as emo. So it looks like all my sorces were as reliable as yours... so how bout we add them all? No, lets not add any more than we need. Pbroks13 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoponpop69

message: For reference and as Pbroks13 asked I have included a copy of the sort of thing I was suggesting for the infobox on the right. As this compromise does not appear acceptable to both parties, I suggest we broaden the discussion. WjBscribe 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator comment

message: Given the new arguments raised above, I think it would be useful to have a broader discussion. I would suggest considering the question: "For any given group how do we decide what genre(s) to include them under?" in particular this raises the question of: 
# Where groups have been described as many genres, how many should be listed in the infobox? 
# How do we decide which to list?
# How important is it that inclusion in a particular genre is controversial?
# How should the controversy be flagged up to the reader?
If we can agree a general approach, it may be possible to then agree its application to this article. WjBscribe 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative approach

message: 1.) I would say around four or five at the most, as long as they were all well sourced, some articles list too many unsourced and unnecesary genres like The Rolling Stones page.
2.) A combination of sources and consensus.
3.) I feel it is very important that Christian rock be listed, as I feel without it the articles not telling the whole story.
4.) In a section of the article, as it is now.
Hoponpop69 03:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoponpop69

message: # The group should only have as many as they need. I dont think things like "rock" should be listed (not that anyone proposed it). Thats way to broad. But if they need many genres to describe them, then do so, but I dont think that happens very often. I like what the example above looks like. I think its perfect.
# To decide... I'd usually say by reliable sources, but sources usually dont agree. So, I say by a majority vote. I was kind of expecting more poeple to jump in to this mediation, but oh well.
# When the band does not list them as it. But I've said that more than enough.
# I think the above example is fine.
Pbroks13 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pbroks13

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up incase you wonder why I no longer participate. I could be gone as soon as tommorow, you should read the following talkpage section, as well as it's two subsections if you're wondering why I am leaving.
Hoponpop69 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I may soon leave this discussion process as I may leave wikipedia

message: OK, I'm not sure where things stand given Hoponpop69's departure. Are there still multiple parties involved in this discussion? I felt that we were moving forwards but obviously its now difficult to progress. Of those remaining, is there any particular proposed compromise above that you were happy with? WjBaway 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where things stand?

message: In light of the comments above and the fact that although Hoponpop69 appears to have left Wikipedia he did express a willingness for the (see below) option in this edit, I shall close this mediation implement that solution as the outcome of this discussion. WjBscribe 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediator response