Talk:Stryper

Slight update on "Reborn" album

updated "reunion" section to update the release date for the album "reborn" to August 16, 2005.

Discussion

"They are considered the pioneers in the popularization of Christian Rock music".

Mmmmmm.... I think that title belongs to Larry Norman, who pioneered Christian Rock in the late 1960's.... more than 15 years before. See wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Norman

Perhaps the wording should be changed to "the pioneers of Christian metal," or if that is too POV, simply "pioneers" without "the." - KB 22:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Stryper were popularizers of Christian Rock, considering that 'To Hell with the Devil' remains the highest selling Christian album of all time, over twenty years after its original release.

CaptnSpandex 23:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

legacy

Why was the information about the Stryper biography replaced with stuff about people thinking heavy metal was "close" to "satanic music?"

• First, the section you refer to was practically an advertisement for the book Loud N Clear: the story of Stryper. THis violates Wikipedia policy. Second, the legacy section is intended to show the fact that Stryper was recongnized by many as a great musical band but that their openly christian image prevented them from obtaining bigger succes, in the like of Guns N ROses, Motley Crue and Quiet Riot, who were band with similiar sound.<<Coburn_Pharr>> 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Touche. But the fact that there was a biography published about them -- is in and of itself a testimony to their legacy, no?

• • Coburnpharr04, what are you basing your statement that Stryper was never as popular as Mötley Crüe, Quiet Riot, and other Glam bands on? Two of Stryper's videos were the most requested on MTV during that station's heyday, they have a platinum album, and several gold albums. Also, the statements about being 'too close to Satanic music', etc, need sources or they need to be removed.

CaptnSpandex 23:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Credibility

Perhaps something should be said about the credibility of the band? It's no secret that Stryper had MANY critics for trying to combine religious ideas that are predominantly about conformity and living by a strict set of rules, with a musical style that has always been active in pushing the boundaries, promoting free-will, and rebellion against power in the wrong hands.

The band didn't just have critics from one side of the argument either. As already suggested in the article, some religious groups saw them as being too close to the bands they were trying to counter, and my perception was that the majority of rock fans saw them as having little artistic credibilty in a rebelious musical genre such as Heavy Metal, due to their religious stance.

Of course the paragraph would have to be written in a balanced way, otherwise it could be construed as personal opinion (and therefore not valid for an encyclopedia) ... however there must be countless archive articles, tv shows, interviews etc that can be cited to give an overall view of the band's standing inside the context of the 80's rock/metal world, and the religious world.

--Compost 17:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, because what you just said isn't full of a hell of a lot more POV than the article itself, right? If you even bothered to read the article there is stuff about the controversy anyways. Seriously you need to actually read things first and see what is in the article, and if you already did then maybe you just need to grow up. About them not having "artistic merit", they were pretty popular and have just as much "artistic merit" as pretty much any other glam metal group of their time. --E tac 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the band's "credibility". Are you saying that Stryper wasn't credibly a Christian band, or not credibly a metal band? Or both? Maybe you can assert that the "metal scene" rejected Stryper, although I have no idea whether that's true or not, and either way it had better be verifiably sourced. But Stryper obviously found mainstream acceptance -- they had a platinum album and multiple music videos regularly played on MTV -- and thus were the first Christian hard rock band to gain widespread credibility at all. Jpers36 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure about what he meant by credibility as well, It seems he is just pushing his own POV because controversies are already part of the article. --E tac 05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

as being someone who grew up in the '80's metal scene' in hollywood, i can tell you for a FACT that the members of stryper were anything but 'christian.' in fact, it is well-known in the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.98.167 (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Music critics"?

I am taking issue with "Dial-the-truth" ministries being cited as BOTH a "music critic" and a "religious group".

I'm not being anti-Christian here, but I really think Dial-the-truth citations should be removed from this page, or at least minimalized to a great degree. No one in the music business would accept them as legitimate "music critics". Also, they are a very small minority, a single organization...as such, you should not cite THEIR OPINIONS and extrapolte them to represent the opinions of "religious groups" (For instance, I wouldn't create a blog, put my personal opinions on it, then cite my opinion on Wikipedia as representative of the opinions of "heavy metal fans").

The only reason to cite the Dial-the-Truth ministry website in this article would be to verify that, "Dial-the-Truth ministries has criticized Stryper..."

Get it? Now, if no one objects (or if no one does it themselves), I'll eventually scrub or re-work the poor sourcing in this article. So, if you object, speak up now, please. Ynot4tony (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

KYLE

I'm wondering if the entire paragraph that includes the info on KYLE should be removed or put in a separate section (or at least the more personal information should be added to M. Sweet's page?)

I did edit the 2nd sentence and added a 3rd, since unfortunately her cancer has returned.

"Sweet's wife Kyle had been diagnosed with stage four ovarian cancer, and the new album was put on hold so that he could care for his family and ailing wife. She underwent surgery and treatment from February 14 to July 14, eventually resulting in her complete, although brief, recovery and restored health. In April, 2008, Kyle announced that her cancer had returned as of October 2007."

I'm a newbie and do not know how to put in references or citations so if anyone wants to help out with that, it would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.43.127 (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Had to break the bad news about Kyle passing away. A link to the official Stryper page was added, as the frontpage has been replaced with a memorial for her. Very sad.

CaptnSpandex (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

W.A.S.P.

I have heard that they were a response to the band W.A.S.P.. Any truth in this?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

About the Wife

Out of respect for her and her family, I don't think it is a good idea, to place an article or add in a section about Kylie in this article on Wikipedia. The woman is very ill and we don't know how long she will live. I think it is a good idea to leave her alone in peace. I have been a fan of Stryper for a long time and I really do hope she recovers from her illness.

I have also added this comment on the talk page of Michael Sweet. 27 December 2008. Anriz

Influenced

Current WWE superstar Chris Jericho as stated numerous times throughout his auto-biography, and the begs the question: Why isn't it noted? --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 17:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening is a mess

I restored the opening to something earlier because I had to roll my eyes at what I saw. UnBlack metal?

Anyways before it gets changed I think there has to be some sort of agreement on what needs to be said for the opening. I'm going to spend some time trying to come up with something but don't expect it soon.

If anyone wants to take it on please do, I would just ask that it really summarizes the article and the band and is a good lead. No opinion please.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the edit to the previous one. "Opening is a mess" is a statement based on opinion, rather than WP style guidelines, lacking constructive direction. The version that you accepted contained inappropriate qualifiers, puffery, and use of capital letters. I agree with the awkward sentence pertaining to unblack/black metal and simply removed it. Cindamuse (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Then may I ask what would be acceptable? My main problem is this - "Stryper had some success during the mid-late 1980s" I can see you having a problem with saying they had "great" success, but then "some" is okay? I don't personally like either choice. So what guidelines, examples should be followed to clean up the opening?71.224.103.120 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not define success? How many albums went gold or platinum? How many world tours did they have? What size crowds did they play to? How many singles did well and on which charts? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Walter's suggestion to define success. The word "great", is a subjective term. What is great in the opinion of one person, may not be considered great to another. Cindamuse (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree "great" is opinionated but so is saying "some." So that is why I asked what would be acceptable?

As for success we do know that they have one certified Platinum album and two certified Gold albums. Also Billboard lists their positions on the charts - http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/stryper/discography/albums/3025 And we know they had two world tours - http://www.stryper.net/tour-archive/

I know some people don't want to give the band their due but that's not the point of the article it's to state the facts and not the opinions of either side.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright I did a re-write that I hope is agreeable with others. Feel free to correct what you think is wrong. I was just hoping to get some guidelines from others before doing this.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Made one change for readability and applied Wikipedia spacing policy (one space after punctuation). Also it's 1980s not 1980's. The former is the era, the latter is possessive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

I'm hoping for some guidance but I'm thinking of cleaning up the article and would like some guidance. What are the main problems with the article, specifically what sections need the most work? I'm thinking first that the trivia section could be put into the legacy section of the page. Second I was thinking of adding a section on controversies for the band, such as the mexican incident and attacks from religious leaders in the 80s. Also a minor one but a section on Tim Gaines and his history with the band. Any thoughts or guidance? Yes I'm looking at you Walter and Cindamuse.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Points within the trivia section need to be diffused into the article. The current Legacy section is simply a Trivia section with a different name. The information from the Legacy section needs rewritten to exclude unrelated trivial matters or integrated into the rest of the article.
• Controversy section(s) indicate a possible inappropriate point of view of the subject. It may be better to integrate controversial material into the article as a whole. See WP:NOCRIT.
• I don't personally see anything wrong with including content on Tim, however, this would need to be on par with sections pertaining to the other members of the band. The current Members section provides no more than an indiscriminate list. This is just my opinion, mind you, but I think it would be interesting to have a section on band members, along with a subsection presenting each member separately. This would need to brief, with "See also" links to their articles. Cindamuse (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Great ideas, I really like those. A member section would be great, I don't know how much justice I can do but I'll try. The controversy section would just be highlighting how activists picketed their shows and their run in with preachers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzwXqixjXM

If you think a legacy section is wrong I'm okay with doing away with it, but I thought it would be a good place to put some of the trivia and their impact on the industry.

A section on Tim would only be to put forth the facts of his on and off time with the band. If you think it's better to keep it in the main part of the article instead of a separate section I'm okay with that.

Thanks for the input! OfficialDoughboy (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)