Talk:Switchfoot/Archive 1

message: I have decided to take on the task of reorganizing this artical.  I have not done so yet but would appreciate any suggestions that you have.  Thanks --T-rex 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes made, please edit the artical is you see a problem rather then reverting --T-rex 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreating artical

message: Okay, it seems like T-Rex and Walter have both vented enough, and phil has done a good job of resolving the conflict.  Now that everyone's views are reflected in the rather well written paragraph of Switchfoot and Christianity, can we just say this issue is resolved and move on? —Akrabbim 15:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote 'yes'. --.phil. 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with what is there, but this is a wiki so it will forever be changing --T-rex 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. I am still waiting for T-Rex to add some additional information that he thinks is appropriate discussing their background in the CCM industry. Their invovlement had little to do with the smaller California Christian music scene and much more to do with the whole CCM machine based in Nashville. --Walter Görlitz 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, doesn't the mention of Sparrow and the Dove awards say enough about their involvement with the "CCM machine based in Nashville"? You're making it sound as if they shifted their homes to Nashville and pioneered the CCM movement there. I mean, c'mon! All they had to do with the "CCM machine" is that their records were put out by Sparrow! And because of that, they got Dove Awards. And we've mentioned both facts in the article! I don't think its important enough to discuss their CCM background in any more detail (if there is any excluded detail!) unless we add their detailed history spanning through the years and over 5 albums (like U2 or Coldplay's pages). Already, we have one paragraph devoted to their Christian connection, which is almost as long as the "Band History" section...and if we add any more detail regarding this, it would become an imbalanced article. Please don't lose perspective over your Switchfoot-is-CCM obsession.. the band is about more than a prejudice-inducing industry that's at the root of a Christian sub-culture that's unChristlike in many respects.. Christians are called to be out there, rather than boxed inside our own little industry. So, to cut it short: I don't see what else needs to be mentioned besides the fact that SF were part of the Christian rock scene in their early days, and that their albums have always been distributed to Christian audiences by a Christian label. Anything more would be misrepresenting the band, and irrelevant information, making the article imbalanced and not proportionate. Their CCM background is just 10% of who they are, I would hate to see an article that blows up that 10%, driving people away from remaining glorious 90% of the what the band is. So, keep it in proportion. I feel the current 'Switchfoot and Christianity' paragraph does a very good job in introducing readers to the band's Christian background, so I don't understand what your problem is. Anyway, I'll wait to see what you guys come up with. --.phil. 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well ideally the article wil get bigger like coldplay and U2, although U2 has been around awhile.  But the sections that need to be expanded most are their first three albums, which was when their ties to the christian music scene was closest anyways.  I've added a line about sparrow directly to the christianity paragrph, but I like you said .phil., I don't see to much more that could be added --T-rex 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your line ", and their deal with Sparrow records during their early years." for two reasons: (a) they still have a deal with Sparrow records, so that makes the sentence a bit inaccurate. (b) we've mentioned their deal with Sparrow in the last line of the paragraph anyway, making it clear that the deal dates back to their "indie days". More than the mere words "Sparrow Records" which is just a record company's name, I think what's significant is that the band is being distributed to Christian stores, and that's mentioned in the last line, while I ensured that the word "distributed" is wiki-linked to the Sparrow Records page, just as the words "major label" are wiki-linked to Columbia Records page. I think that should suffice, unless you disagree. I'm sorry I'm being too particular about not having redundant lines and words that don't contain much substance (waffle)...we're taught to judge text like that in my English course at university. Besides, I believe we should try and keep the article as neutral as possible, (and as balanced in focus and breadth as possible i.e. not having 40% of the article devoted to their Christian background, etc.) except when it comes to quotes from the band or respectable critics like Rolling Stone or Billboard, which are subjective by nature. On those counts, considering the current length of the article, I wouldn't advise adding any more lines to the Christianity paragraph, and if we absolutely must, it should be tight (to the point; relevant; no repetition elsewhere in the article; in the least number of words possible... you know what I mean.) As for Walter, I'm not worried about him calling in arbitration--its plain to see we haven't hidden anything about the band, and we've backed up our position with logic and evidence. Moving on from the Christianity thing, I think we should start looking at expanding the other areas of the article, like doing a detailed write-up of their history, their indie days, how their sound has developed, etc.. now that would be more beneficial. I'm planning to start writing up on that once my summer break hits, which is 20 days away. You guys could get started collecting ideas/facts/web-links/whatever will be useful.. or writing. As for me, now, its exams... later, peace, .phil. 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As in the fact that the talk page has gotten huge, yea this needs an archive.  I would propose you archive a few other sections as well (Recreating artical, External Links, Evergreen, Sparrow Records, Intelligent, This is Your Life) are all catagories that are more historic then anything else now, but if you only want to archive this one section that would help too, actually I'm now thinking that maybe you should just do this one --T-rex 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually perhaps you should wait Walter is going on another editing streak trying to show Switchfoot as a Christian band again --T-rex 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it over?

message: Considering just this heading is probably too in and of itself, I propose archiving it under Talk:Switchfoot/Not Christian by genre. All in favor?  —Akrabbim 02:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in the fact that the talk page has gotten huge, yea this needs an archive.  I would propose you archive a few other sections as well (Recreating artical, External Links, Evergreen, Sparrow Records, Intelligent, This is Your Life) are all catagories that are more historic then anything else now, but if you only want to archive this one section that would help too, actually I'm now thinking that maybe you should just do this one --T-rex 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually perhaps you should wait Walter is going on another editing streak trying to show Switchfoot as a Christian band again --T-rex 03:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: T-rex, "intelligent" is a qualitative descriptor, and thus use of it without attribution to another source is POV, even though I agree with your opinion. I am again reverting it. Jpers36 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see what you have against the word Intelligent appearing in the artical.  It is not POV in any way at all.  I'll give you a chance to respond before I add it back in again, but I really don't see where you are going with this.  Inteligent is simply an adjective that does a good job of describing their lyrics... --T-rex 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Intelligent" is a qualitiative descriptor and thus a simple investigation will show that their lyrics are more intelligent than many other bands. It's not POV, it's fact. Several reviewers have made similar statements. Shall we come up with referecnes to satisfy your POV policing? --Walter Görlitz 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent 

message: I just heard bits of this song on a commercial for CBS's new show The Unit.  Is it the theme song, or just being used for the commercial?  Anyway, I think it should be worth mentioning. Akrabbim 18:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it is really that significant, but I don't actually know anything about the show --T-rex 18:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its significant, considering it is their song, and may become a theme song, so I added it. if you dont think its nessessary, talk. Akrabbim 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well their songs have been used in tons of TV shows and ads and the sort.  This one dosen't really look to be all the special --T-rex 00:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I never heard them anywhere besides that, so I thought it was relevant. What else have they been used for? Akrabbim 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Recentlly they have been in some promos for the Olympics, I know they have also had their songs used in Dawson's Creek, Smallville, A Ring Of Endless Light, A Walk To Remember, America's Next Top Model, Charmed, and probably alot more. --T-rex 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess it's not significant, so I'll remove the reference from this page, then.  I already added it to the song page, so it's not unnoticed. Akrabbim 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I heard This is your life being used for a different show, I forget what it was though. Howabout1 16:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: actually I don't think that it was ever released, I could be wrong --T-rex 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is Your Life 

message: Switchfoot has been critisized by many in the Christian community for allowing one of their songs: "Adding to the Noise" (from The Beautiful Letdown) to be used in a Victoria Secret commercial.  Although the band has not yet released a public statement regarding their song's involvment in the ad, it is quite possible that Switchfoot's record label (Columbia Records) took the liberty of selling the song out to the lingerie company without the group's approval.
::'Teenwriter' added the above paragraph (thanks for the contribution). I wasn't sure how relevant it is to the article/band, so I moved it here. Maybe we could club this with the copy-protection issue which was also controversial (including Tim's response) and make a "Controversies" section, or we could add this bit to the 'Nothing is Sound' sub-section in "Band History". Or maybe its not relevant enough to be on the article at all? (which band isn't caught up in minor controversies?) Discuss away... --.phil. 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is was only a controversy in the christian only side of switchfoot, which I think is only a very small percent of their fans.  I don't think it is worthy of inclusion (the band nor the label ever bothered to address the issue).  It is almost certain that Columbia sold the right to use the song for the commercial (i don't even see why the band would be expected to be involved in minor business stuff like that).  Also adding to the noise was part of The Beautiful Letdown so It wouldn't fit in Nothing is sound.  maybe this should be mentioned on the album page instead? --T-rex 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that you under-estimate the number in their Christian fan-base. I don't know what it says on your copy of BLD but on mine it says © 2005 Sony Music Entertainment Inc. which means that Sony has the rights to sell it, not Columbia driectly. I can't imagine, however, that the label would do anything without consulting with the band, or at least their lawyers. Hey T-Rex, don't you have some edits to be working on for me. Friday I will be requesting arbitration if there's nothing there. --Walter Görlitz 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Teenwritter has now readded this information(slightlly different wording) to the Beautiful Letdown article --T-rex 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Akrabbim has put the album positions in a chart.  As a result you can see that under all circumstances you would expect that Nothing is Sound would have charted somewhere on the Tom Contemporary Christian chart, so figuring that we were just missing the information I googled it.  Found nothing except wikipedia mirror pages, so I then just tried to find the charts so i could possibly check some full histroy of them.  Again I found nothing.  I'm starting to think these charts don't exsist... --T-rex 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno. All I did was put the information that was there (in list form) into a table. I have no idea where they came from. You could check the history page, maybe? —Akrabbim 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats been on the page as long as I can remember, but I never looked into it until now --T-rex 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Deep into the annals of Switchfoot WikiHistory: 6:10, September 14, 2004.  This is when the section is written, by Beau99.  Maybe someone could ask him.  —Akrabbim 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such Billboard chart, you can be sure. Its probably some chart by a Christian company somewhere... since its not referenced, I think its safe to remove it. And why have it when you have Billboard's Christian chart, which is the more respected one? --.phil. 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was there as Akrabbim pointed out since 2004, and there was no reason to assume that there was anything wrong with it until I got suspecious as to why Nothing is Sound didn't make it onto the charts (I guess we're deleting it then) --T-rex 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'm deleting it then. -phil 24.86.149.11 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Contemporary Christian