From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Pop music (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alternative music (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


This page is marked as copyright to the Walt Disney Corporation and to Hollywood Records. This is completely unacceptable and the original submitter has already agreed to release copyright on this material. However, I have requested that the user himself/herself clarify the copyright status of the page, either by removing the notice or by removing any copyrighted material from the page. If this is not done immediately, I will mark the page as a copyright violation and we will have an administrator look it over. --Yamla 02:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. Withdraw your comment (please). --Vmatikov

Withdrawn. --Yamla 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --Vmatikov


There are currently six pictures on this page. Even the thumbnailed versions are a little large. I'm thinking the page would look better with two pictures or, at most, three; this would bring the article more in line with articles for other bands. Which ones do people think we should keep? I like Image:Aly&AJ1WEST.jpg and perhaps Image:Wikimage_1.jpg, but I'm open to convincing. --Yamla 00:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)…

You are absolutley correct. I have added that many photos because I have had a very difficult time selceting which ones to keep. I think that keeping Image:Aly&AJ1WEST.jpg and Image:Aly&AJ1WEST.jpg is a very good idea. I definetley am going to remove the CD album cover and small press-release Ice Princess premier photo, as it is of a bad quality. I will make sure to ask Aly and AJ (yes, I know them) for their opinions later. For now I am going to keep the following: Image:Aly&AJ1WEST.jpg, Image:Wikimage_1.jpg, and a small (I mean a real thumbnail, in comparrison to my current "thumbnails") version of Image:Aly and aj 20.jpg. --Vmatikov


I appologize for anything on this page that you do not like, however I specifically wrote ABOUT Aly and AJ's albums for a reason, I wanted to explain a little bit. My original intent is not know, however would it be okay to put information about their albums back in? Thank you. --vmatikov


I merged in from the other Aly and AJ page and tried to remove duplications and ran into trouble. Could someone please clean up the page and remove the cleanup tag I added? Tedernst 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the pages. It would be my pleasure to clean up this page, as I am the original creator. Thank you again for the merging of the pages! Vmatikov 23:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed two instances of a large number of -'s. Not sure why they were there to begin with, couldn't find a reference in the past edits or talk page. 20:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)EricBetts (


Where r u people finding that Into the Rush is certified gold because I have looked all through the RIAA website and i can't find it.

I checked and found it there as gold certified on March 20, 2006. 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Similar Artists and Influenced by[edit]

Are these sections really necessary? "Similar artists" is a very vague term, and any given artist could be influenced by hundreds of sources, many of which do not merit Wikipedia articles. Therefore these sections seem inappropriate or just out of place. -Rosepuff12 03:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's also basically POV and hard to cite or verify. I'll remove the section. --Yamla 04:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -Rosepuff12 16:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't think the interview is necessary because the page is about Aly and AJ's accomplishments and the interview is just not appropiate for the page. It might be to gossipy too. Not everything could be true on the page. - Rosepuff12 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Which interview are we talking about? The article references at least two. If you are talking about the interview where they proclaim their disbelief in evolution, I think it is very much relevant. They obviously believe it is relevant enough to proclaim unto the world and in any case, the article doesn't exist solely as marketing. I know this is not what you are even remotely implying, Rosepuff, I just think it is very relevant. --Yamla 14:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I also think the information should stay. It was their choice to bring it up in a public manner. Also, it's at least partially related to the other things mentioned in that paragraph - their mother belonging to a Christian music group, the fact that they are home schooled. If it doesn't seem like it flows properly in the article, that can be changed over time as people add more information and context about Aly & AJ, but the raw info, including their quotes, should definitely stay, in my opinion. Serpent-A 19:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok so I guess you're right. It'll stay, even though I still don't think it belongs on there. -Rosepuff12 23:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Code Name System[edit]

I should really point out that both Alyson and Amanda use Code Names when they are credited for their musical works, and I believe in code names. While this ain't no Metal Gear Solid "thing", the fact that Alyson and AJ uses "code names" or "pseudonyms" warrant the article to use their code names to credit them. Therefore, personally, and from my point-of-view, we should be addressing the Michalka sisters by their "code names", even though this ain't no military. I had to make a minor edit because using code names in this article (unless it's a single person) makes the article look more uniform IMO. Therefore, I appreciate if Alyson is code-named ALY and Amanda is code-named AJ, much like the record label. Thanks. — Mark Kim (Reply/Start Talk) 05:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Alright, let's settle this so we don't have a revert war. I see four distinct schools of thought on how to handle this evolution business. The two expressed their disbelief in the:

  1. process of evolution
  2. theory of evolution
  3. process of what they consider to be the 'theory' of evolution
  4. (this sentence should be removed because it does not belong in a brief overview encyclopedic biography)

Option 4 is my preference. Is this really one of the most important things about these two? Is it even the most important thing from the Blender interview? To me, including it at all seems to be a POV attempt to ridicule Aly & AJ, Christians, or both. (I am neither a Christian nor an Aly & AJ fan, in case you were wondering.)

My second choice would be option 2, including the link I just added to what a scientific theory is. It's a shame scientifically illiterate people abuse the word theory, with regard to evolution, to make evolution seem less believable; but again, those people are usually scientifically illiterate. The fact is, as the theory article explains, evolution fits exactly the definition of a scientific theory.

I don't understand the reversion to "process". Theory is the much more commonly understood term, and it makes more sense in the context of the sentence (to me). If you can show me verifiable sources that science has made a sea change to favor process over theory, fine, but I doubt that is the case. The function of theories in science is long established and important; I would be disappointed if the community changed its terminology for PR reasons.

As for option 3, the scare quotes are clearly a POV attempt to make it look like anyone who disbelieves evolution must be stupid, and that people who use the word theory to describe evolution are incorrect and are using it disparagingly. I trust I've discussed both points at length.

I'd like to see the thoughts of others on this issue here rather than in an edit war. --SuperNova |T|C| 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

  • As you may know, I'm the one who changed it too Option 3, and that's not what I meant at all. I myself do not believe in the theory of evolution (nor see how anyone really can, once they've studied it), and I was merely trying to find an acceptable medium between the two arguements. I personally do not think that people who disregard evolution are stupid, on the contrary, I think they probably understand the theory better then most. I personally am glad that you reverted it, as I think that it, according to their beliefs, is the best option for the artice. I just wanted to clerify why I changed it the way I did, and to apologize for misleading anyone. Thank You. Jay 18:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with the word theory if it means that much to you, just so long as the word is linked to its scientific usage. Their unusual beliefs are very much relevant to the article, as has been discussed previously on this talk page. Serpent-A 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • JackSparrow/Jay, your totally right (I've read The Origin of the Species), but taht's besides the point, they jsut mentioned that they od not believe in the theory, simple as that. IronCrow 05:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
well, I'm with the vast majority of the western world and do believe in evolution, buuut I think what AJ adds into the Blender interview shows a clear misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, so I think it should be pointed out that its their (blatantly incorrect) understanding of the theory.

I'm not a fan of the group and as a scientist I don't give credence to the views of the misinformed on evolution. However, I find the reference here to the girls' beliefs regarding evolution to be completely out of context for the article. Someone mentions evolution out of the blue based on a select excerpt from a Blender article, yet not a single other view the girls hold is mentioned anywhere else in the article (other than the fact that they don't consider themselves a Christian Pop group). Why is their belief or disbelief in evolution being singled out as important when no other belief or disbelief is? Seems to me someone has an agenda, although the issue is so confused I can't tell if it's someone who ridicules the girls (by showcasing their obvious ignorance of evolution) or someone who praises them (by showcasing about their disbelief in evolution). Removing the reference altogether would, I think, be best for the article and that is what I'm going to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Move Interview[edit]

Is it possible that we could move the evolution interview to a different spot, like to a trivia section of something like that? -Rosepuff12 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosepuff, I know you and I have both expressed in the past that perhaps that item should be removed altogether. I know you're not proposing that now, and I doubt we would reach a consenus if it were proposed, but personally I don't think it belongs on here at all. It is quite trivial so maybe a Trivia section would be the best place for it (even though, in general, I find articles with trivia sections annoying, I'll make an exception here). I'd support a move. --SuperNova |T|C| 01:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a Trivia Section. Jay 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm a member of a music only Wikia, and I thought I'd contribute the Trivia Section that I put on Alyson Michalka's page. I'll let the people who know the sources decide what to use, but I'll go ahead and re-word it from just Aly to both Aly & AJ:


  • Are both Christians
  • Do not believe in the theory of evolution
  • Aly is currently 5'6
  • Aj is currently 5'4
  • Alyson's middle name is Renae
  • AJ's middle name is Joy
  • Aly first began acting/singing at age 5, in mostly church productions
  • Aly began playing guitar at age 13
  • Aly owns over 20 guitars
  • Aly named one of her guitars Luna
  • They are both each other's best friends
  • Are two years arapt, concerning age
  • Aly looks to her sister as an example
  • Aly has played the role of Keely Teslow on the Disney Channel Original Series Phil Of The Future from 2004 to 2006
  • In 2006 they will take the lead roles in the Disney Channel Original Series Haversham Hall
  • Alyson appeared in the lead role of Allyson Miller in the Disney Channel Original Movie Now You See It...
  • Both appeared in the lead roles in the Disney Channel Original Movie Cow Belles

There you go, I'll let you guys hash out what to use. Hope it helps. Jay 02:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

None of this is appropriate unless it is cited properly with reliable sources. Some of it is already in place, mind you. Other parts (names, for example) is not appropriate for the trivia section, it should already have been mentioned elsewhere. --Yamla 14:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Um,actually,they will not be reprising roles,they do not want to for their own reasons.I have taken that off. JakeTheBlake 21:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Singing career section[edit]

It really needs major clean up. It has a large amount of unecassary information and seems to be POV. --MorwenofLossarnarch 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging from Aly & AJ discography[edit]

Aly & AJ have released one album; I hardly think a separate discography article is necessary. Also, this article is rather short as it is. Extraordinary Machine 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They've also released several singles, a DVD, and a Deluxe Edition of the debut album, if not necessary now, the article soon will be. I vote to keep. Jay 00:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy; reasons for edits count more than numbers of "votes". Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merging recommends merging two articles if they are on related subjects that have a large overlap, if at least one of them is very short and cannot or should not be expanded much, and if a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. I think it's better to have the info in one place, because readers will find it more useful. There's also considerable overlap between this page, Aly & AJ discography and Into the Rush. Wikipedia isn't paper, but it's still just as unnecessary in most cases to have the same info in more than one place. Extraordinary Machine 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with EM. The merge is currently more useful for the readers; we are not writing the encyclopedia for ourselves. The discography article is very short when you remove the excess table info thus can be merged into this page. — getcrunk what?! 00:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, I've merged it in. Extraordinary Machine 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I say, after their third or fourth album, we'll remake the discography page. Tcatron565 19:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

They have released three :

  • Into The Rush
  • Into The Rush : Deluxe Edition
  • Acoustic Hearts of Winter

And they'll have another one this year.I don't think that's enough for a whole article unless you plan to put credits and other categories. JakeTheBlake 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the "deluxe edition" just a rerelease? It's not an actually new album, I don't think.... Adamsmo 07:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the original Into The Rush is rarely sold anymore. Everytime I search for it online, I only get the deluxe ones. As of July 21, 2007, they have released 3 actual albums and 1 rerealeased album. On an interview, Aly said that Insomniatic will have a rerelease.


- Into the Rush (2005) - Acoustic Hearts of Winter (2006) - Insomniatic (2007)


- Into the Rush (2006) - Insomniatic (Sept. 2007)


My two cents: I am confident that wikipedias guidelines regarding WP:OR and WP:POV enforce my stance that addition of any context, justification, and explaination to aly and aj's comments are in violation of WP:NPOV policy. I believe that Aly and Aj's quotes on evolution should not be for any editor to explain.
This article should be about the musician duo and not a debate for merits of evolution and creationism or Aly and AJ's understanding of either theory. With that in mind, I plan to remove any comments that try to in anyway to explain aly and aj's comments and will monitor the page for vandalism that goes either way.--Kenn Caesius 04:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That belongs on pages about them, not their group, band, or whatever. IronCrow 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


I took out the bit of trivia about there height. That cannot be included because they are still growing. Also, whoever keeps putting "Not This Year" as a single from Acoustic Hearts of Winter. They have not mentioned anything about it, and its too late for them to release it anyways. Its almost Christmas...! Switchfo0t813

It was originally going to be, but was scrapped due to the new album in April. Tcatron565 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense. "Greatest Time of Year" is only getting airplay on Radio Disney and thats it anyways. Switchfo0t813
I understand that Amanda Michalka is still growing, but I don't that Alyson Michalka has much growing left to do. Alyson is 17, so I thought that by then she would be at adult height. I don't know; maybe it varies. Acalamari 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper genre classification[edit]

Why are Aly and AJ classified and Christian artists? They don't make Christian music, with the exception of some of the religious songs on their Christmas album and one other song that has "God" appearing once in the lyrics. The majority of their fanbase was acquired from their affiliation with/promotion by the Disney Channel, not from their music being played on Christian stations. Dukie010 07:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They are Pop/Teen Pop, not Christian or any other type of religious music. All because Aly & AJ themselves are Christians doesn't mean their music is. Switchfo0t813 keeps changing the genre to Christian Pop. Acalamari 16:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The word "Christian" appears nowhere on their myspace page. --King Bee 16:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Since when are Aly & AJ Christian pop, they have Never Far Behind on Christian radio, and that's about it. They are definitely classified as Teen pop, especially due to the fact that they got their start at Disney. Zaque 24 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed; Aly & AJ earned their break from Disney. In fact, had they been "Christian Pop," we may not have ever heard of them, sadly. I can't name anyone in the Christian genre. In fact, I can't name anyone in a religious genre. Switchfo0t813 seems to think that changing their genre to Teen Pop is vandalism. We seem to be having yet another edit war here. Acalamari 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact Acalamari, I suppose we are. I have compromised this arguement to include teen pop and Christian pop together on the page several weeks ago, but it seems you are leaning towards the popular opinion and are changing your mind. Aly & AJ are, in fact, a teen pop and Christian pop duo. They received major promotion from Disney as a result of Alyson Michalka's involvement in the show Phil of the Future. After seeing they had reasonable success with Radio Disney, they decided to release singles to mainstream Top 40 radio and to Christian radio, where they released "Never Far Behind", which in turn peaked at #1 on the Christian R&R this past year. They just recently released their second Christian radio only single, which is "Shine". Aly & AJ have been featured in many popular Christian music magazines such as Christian Music Planet, Contemporary Christian Music, Christian Music Today, and others, in all of which they classified themselves as Christian pop singers, and also stating that they do not only make Christian pop, but also record secualar music for those outside of the Christian market. As well as being in magazines, they are also part of numerous Christian artist databases at popular Christian websites, the most significant being And, most recently, they were nominated for Contemporary Inspirational Artist of the Year at the 2006 American Music Awards. Contemporary Inspirational Artist of the Year is the same thing as Christian Artist of the Year, but the AMAs decided to change the name because some protested the use of the word Christian. If you have any further questions or need citation for any of the articles mentioned above, contact me on my talk page please =]. Switchfo0t813
Switchfo0t813, you cited that they are mentioned on However, in the article reviewing "Into The Rush," here is what it states:
Aly & AJ had the amazing potential to present themselves as the Christian alternative to pop stars such as Hilary Duff among many others. Unfortunately, these sisters did not take this opportunity, but rather found themselves simply among the typical Radio Disney fare. Of course if this is what they were shooting for, then they have more than succeeded in their efforts.
It seems to me that your own citation says that they are not a Christian band, just two musicians who are Christians. What do you make of this? --King Bee 21:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I am currently on the staff team of that website. Aly & AJ would not be listed in the Artist Database page there if they were not a Christian duo. The staffer who reviewed that album no longer reviews albums for us, and their album review was only the opinion of the reviewer. Switchfo0t813
That's correct Switchfo0t813, I did say that you were right in putting Christian Pop/Teen together, but I've changed my mind since then because I did some research. Also, if you read your Talk Page, you'll see that I "took the comment" back due to your personal attack. For your information, Aly & AJ are pop, not Christian Pop. Aly & AJ themselves are Christians, but their music is fairly religious-neutral. All because someone is religious doesn't mean that their music is. Alanis Morissette is a Buddhist, and a rocker. Does that make her a Buddhist-Rocker? No! She's a rocker; in fact, she's a Female Rocker. Avril Lavigne is Roman Catholic, and is a Punk-Rocker. Is she a Roman Catholic-Punk-Rocker? No! She is a Female Punk-Rocker. Lindsay Lohan is also Roman Catholic, but she's not a "Roman Catholic-Musician." This also applies to Aly & AJ, who are Christians, but not "Christian-Musicians." They would only qualify as Christian-Musicians if they sang about their religion in their songs, which; of course, they don't. Acalamari 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I checked out that website, and Lauren Sommerford (the reviewer) is still listed as one of the current staff members. Obviously the review is only her opinion, that's what all reviews are. However, the review was posted there. If I didn't know anything about Aly & AJ and went to to see if their new record was a Christian one, I would find out that it was not. I'm sorry, but you still haven't provided us with consistent, confirming evidence that they should be labeled as a Christian act, and not just two musicians who happen to be Christians. --King Bee 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough Is Enough. Switchfo0t813, you keep adding "Christian Pop" to their genre even though you are the only one here who thinks they are a Christian band. Even the website you purport to work for does not think they are a Christian band. I cannot find mention of them being a Christian band on their myspace page or their main website. You are deliberately adding false information to a band's page that contains people who are still alive; the way I see it, that's grounds for libel. They are certainly musicians who are christians, but they are not a Christian band. --King Bee 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To start off, if you need proof that I work for, please discuss that with me on my talk page. Secondly, you are correct in saying they do not list Christian pop as a genre on their MySpace page, nor on the home page on their official website. However, on their official message boards, one of their managers posted in a FAQ thread that they ARE a Christian group, but do not make music ONLY for Christians, because doing that would limit their audience, obviously, by a vast amount. You also fail to acknowledge the fact that they were nominated for Christian Artist of the Year at the 2006 American Music Awards, which I posted somewhere above. If the entire American Music Industry has come to conclude they should be nominated for such an award as that, they are obviously a Christian group, otherwise they would've been nominated for Pop Album of the Year. Switchfo0t813 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance of a compromise here, or is this edit war going to continue indefinitely? Brainslug 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We keep trying to compromise; but Switchfo0t813 doesn't listen to us. That user keeps undoing our edits. We remove Switchfo0t813's vandalism, but that user re-vandalizes the page. Acalamari 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Previously we settled on a compromise that we would include BOTH Christian pop and Teen pop, but someone decided to start removing Christian pop, although that is what part of their genre is. That is how this controversy began. Switchfo0t813 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I originally agreed on that, I admit; but I changed my mind after doing some research. Don't use my old views against me, User: Switchfo0t813. However, I did not start changing the genre back to Teen Pop. Someone else did that. Acalamari 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I changed it back to "Teen Pop" twice. I thought it was an error and didn't realize this was an issue. They don't make music that mentions Jesus or God except for one song, which wasn't even released on their main album. Disney made a deal with a Christian record label so their music could be released Christian radio stations, and they speak openly about their religious views unlike other Disney Channel stars, but their music is mainstream.Dukie010 05:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I never stated that it was you who changed the genre, Acalamari. However, I think it would be only fair and reasonable to include both genres. =] Switchfo0t813 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't need proof you work for them. I could not possibly care less about that. Their FAQ on their message board says they are Christians, not a Christian band. They were not nominated for Christian Artist of the Year, they were nominated for Favorite Contempary Inspirational Artist of the Year. Your claim that that means "Christian artist" is unsourced. They are not obviously a Christian group. The compromise asked for above would entail that we list Aly & AJ under the genre they identify with; as of right now, that is not as a Christian band. --King Bee 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We need to end this edit war now, before we're all blocked. Aly & AJ are Christians, but their genre is Teen Pop. I'll admit I agreed with User: Switchfo0t813 to begin with, but after some research, I have changed my mind. Acalamari 03:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Inspirational pop? Switchfo0t813 20:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Leave talking about the genre for the moment; we're supposed to be discussing this in the mediation. I'm just waiting for the other two Users. Acalamari 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What's there to discuss? We have a consensus, and Switchfoot has said that he will not go against it. There is no more need for mediation. --Chris Griswold () 23:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
King Bee had already gone to the mediation council before you came in. The case is already being discussed, and Switchfo0t813 has changed the genre to something we haven't agreed on. Acalamari 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me throw in my two cents: I'm sorry, but I hate it when Wikipedia classify's someone a Christian singer, just because they are Christian, or have ONE Christian song. I'm seeing the same thing on the Jonas Brothers and Everlife. Here's an example you guys should think about; the Miley Cyrus article lists her as an actress, and a Pop Singer. Notice how she's from Tennessee, has family ties with country music (a.k.a.: Billy Ray Cyrus), and has even sung one country song with her dad (I Learned From You), AND yet she's still listed as a Pop Singer, and not Country/Pop. Well, that just what I wanna say. Abcw12 11:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, normally, a band/musical group with all Christians is a Christian band (It would be hard to name a few that aren't but Mae and The Classic Crime are a couple). However, this band has NEVER marketed themselves as a Christian group. Also, the song about God would not really make it a Christian song if it is not done by a Christian song. For instance, U2 does a lot of songs about God, but that does not make them Christian songs. Anyways, that's what I have to say. Basically, if they were a Christian band, they would have had to make efforts to market themselves as such. Also, this is to Abcw12, just because a band has ties with someone in another industry does not make them members of it. For instance, Underoath's lead vocalist's brother is in Sullivan (If I remember correctly) but those bands are NOTHING alike. Look at it in this spectrum: If a vocalist did a guest appearence on a TV Show, would that make them an actor? Not really. One thing though, that I did find funny about the article is that they said their music comes from a Christian perspective and "We don't ever wanna preach or shove anything down people's throats, but we want our music to be inspiring." I think that about sums up what a Christian band is (and i'm not talking about Jars of Clay kind of Christian music either... that stuff makes me shiver). Nevertheless, they are not a Christian band for numrous other reasons anyways. IronCrow 22:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


King Bee, why have you put citation needed on so many pieces of trivia? All you simply have to do is search on Google and you will find all of that information credible and true. Switchfo0t813

Then find them and cite them properly on wikipedia. See WP:CITE. --King Bee 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article temporarily protected[edit]

I have temporarily protected this article and blocked two users because of the edit warring going on here. I think all involved know that this is inappropriate. Any arguments need to become simple, cooperative discussions with a goal of consensus before the page is unprotected again. I will be happy to mediate. --Chris Griswold () 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Shall we start a new discussion here? I'd be happy to enumerate my points. --King Bee 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
For everyone's information, I was one of the two blocked Users; 3-hour block for violating the three-revert-rule. I see nothing wrong with saying this. Anyway, I agree with Mr. ChrisGriswold in blocking this page from being edited; the edit war had to stop. My only concern is that Switchfo0t813 will just start putting Christian Pop back in once the page has been unprotected, and we'll be back to where we were. Acalamari 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, if it's the consensus that they are pop only and not Christian pop, and he keeps reverting, he will have to face the consequences for that. Is Switchfoot the only editor here who believes them to be a Christian group? --Chris Griswold () 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The only Users to agree with Switchfoot813 have been IP addresses only. However, one of those IP's could be him editing anonymously; but I'm not going to accuse him of that. Acalamari 23:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, yes. The general consensus is that they are not Christian pop. --King Bee 02:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other Users commenting on this? At the moment it seems to be Mr. ChrisGriswold, King Bee, and me. Are we going to talk further about the page once Switchfo0t813's block has ended? Acalamari 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, so that's consensus. At the very least, Switchfoot needs to provide factual evidence that they perform Christian pop. Not original research. And then, his job is not to argue but to convinve the other users that this is the case. I am removing the protection because I don't think it serves a purpose at this point. I will be watching, but if anyone needs anything, let me know. --Chris Griswold () 09:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

External link[edit]

Is the myspace link really necessary for the page? I think it might not be that appropriate for the page. -Rosepuff12 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But they DO have a myspace.

Mediation discussion -- Consideration of Christian or Inspiration Pop inclusion.[edit]

I am mediating a dispute between user:King Bee and User:Switchfo0t813. User:Acalamari is also a party, but has agreed to be speak through user:King Bee. Unless you are one of the two named parties, please do not participate unless I open the debate. 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cased background, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Aly & AJ Genre Classification

User:Switchfo0t813, please include the cited sources in detail, where we can find the information that supports inclusion of a Christian or Inspirational Pop genre classification. We need you to be specific so that we may verify your sources. 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please go here:

Scroll down and you will see the nominees list. Aly & AJ were nominated for Contemporary INSPRIRATIONAL Artist of the Year, formely known as Christian Artist of the Year, for this past September's American Music Awards. Switchfo0t813 20:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • King Bee? Do you recognize this nomination? 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have recognized this nomination in the past. However, I have not seen any verification of Switchfo0t813's claims that this award was formerly known as "Christian Artist of the Year." If all we are going by is the AMA nomination, then we need to change the genres of both Kirk Franklin and Casting Crowns to "Inspirational pop," as they were both nominated for the same award as Aly & AJ. Luckily, however, on Wikipedia we don't pigeonhole bands into genres based only on what the AMA nominates them for. Lastly, a quick google search for "aly aj 'inspirational pop'" turns up but a paltry 3 hits, while "aly aj 'teen pop'" turns up a whopping 16,000 hits. I know that we don't go by only Google hit counts here, but I think it should be noted. --King Bee 21:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • King Bee, are you saying that there should only be one Genre classification for a band and are opposed to multiple classifications? 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Common sense tells MOST people that Contemporary "Inspirational" means Christian. It was only changed recently. One year it was known as Christian Artist and the following year they all of a sudden changed the award name, most likely because saying "Christian" is offensive to people. Another fact is that Casting Crowns and Kirk Franklin are WELL KNOWN Christian artists, which is why they were nominated in this category. Other winners in this same category include MercyMe, Mary Mary, Steven Curtis Chapman, Yolanda Adams, and others. All of those just mentioned are also WELL KNOWN Christian artists. Why can we not just settle on including BOTH Christian and Teen pop or perhaps Inspirational pop? Switchfo0t813 23:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In response to the question addressed to me by No, that is not what I am saying. For instance, the page for the band Tool has them classified as both alternative metal and progressive rock. This is fine with me, as those are the two genres with which the band identify. However, we can't just choose any two genres we want, they have to be legitimate. --King Bee 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Switchfoot, let's clarify, are you stating that you are willing to use the term Inspirational instead of Christian? 00:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am willing to replace Christian pop with Inspirational pop. Switchfo0t813 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • King Bee: Do you have a better reference supporting the genre you believe the band fits into that has more credibility than Switchfo0t813's citable reference for the Inspirational Pop genre? 03:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do. From the Christian music website "Jesus Freak Hideout", we have the following quote:
Aly & AJ had the amazing potential to present themselves as the Christian alternative to pop stars such as Hilary Duff among many others. Unfortunately, these sisters did not take this opportunity, but rather found themselves simply among the typical Radio Disney fare.
The same website lists their genre as "power pop," not "inspirational pop" as Switchfo0t813 claims the genre should be. Of course, we have to ignore the review for their other record on that same website, as it was written by someone who I strongly suspect to be Switchfo0t813 and therefore qualifies as original research.
As for my desire to list them as teen pop, MTV is one of my sources that lists the band as "teen pop". They do that again here. agrees with me as well. So does Digital Media Wire. And CD Universe. And If you need more sources, let me know. --King Bee 13:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Switchfoot, would you agree that King Bee has many cited sources for the teen pop genre and that it is apparent that this band fits that genre? 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the genre to the proper genre that is sourced. To go to something that is not sourced is against WP:V. The genre is Teen Pop per numerous sites. If you can find a verifiable source that says it's a different genre, then include it along with Teen pop and source it. If you can't find a source and you change it, it is against WP:NOR. I really don't see the discussion. Switchfoot, you seem to be ignoring the mediation, but at the same time are still in favor of the unsourced genre. I've been wrong on Wikipedia many times and realized a different thing should be added, it's perfectly fine. No one is going to care or shove it in your face. As long as we get the correct thing up, everything should be fine. No one will hold anything against you.++aviper2k7++ 22:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm back. Sorry for the delay. I needed time to think this over. I have decided that leaving the genre as "pop" would be reasonable. I just added a section on their page about Christian music, and how they do not want to be directly labeled as Christian artists. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Switchfo0t813 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
This seems fair to me; I'll go and inform and King Bee to see what they think. Acalamari 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't teen pop more illustrative of their true genre? I like the section you added about Christian music, good job. –King Bee (talkcontribs) 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, teen pop, for the time being, does seem to illustrate their genre the best the more that I think about it. I think we can close this discussion once we get the discretion of our mediation leader. Switchfo0t813 19:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. I am glad that we were able to calmly decide this. Again, nicely done on the new section concerning Christian music. –King Bee (talkcontribs) 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. Do you see anything missing from that section that belongs there? Switchfo0t813 19:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at the moment, but I definitely will add to it or change it a bit later when I have time. –King Bee (talkcontribs) 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys, I really appreciate that you were able to reach a compromise. It's always helpful when parties can give a little to find mutual ground. Best of luck with your future edits and if any of you need any assistance in the future, my talk page is always available. 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm glad we compromised. Acalamari 04:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, they have a Christmas album, and they only have 2 other Christian songs. But, they are teen pop singers. NOT christian music. Every artist has christian music once in a whle. For example: Randy Travis. Tcatron565 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
We know; we agreed on teen pop. That's what the Mediation was about. Acalamari 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


I think the controversy section should be put up because they have been in a lot of controversy lately.

Please sign your messages when you leave messages. Anyway, how reliable is this source that you gave? Tommy2 or whatever it was doesn't sound like a decent source to me. Exactly what is going on with this "Aly & AJ Clothing Incident" anyway? Acalamari 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC) is a reliable source, its a teen news site. He posted critisim about their attire because he got alots of emails from concerned fans who thought they were heading down the wrong road due to the photos from the Ed Hardy event. You can find the photos at Aly-and-Aj source. I'm actually quite concerned about them. You can even email tommy if you want too.
-Cena(I'm not a memeber of wiki yet)
A teen news site is not really a reliable source. All because this Tommy person says his news is real doesn't mean it really is. If, however, you could find more sources about this event besides Tommy2 (i.e. to cross-reference it), then we might be able to work the section into the article better (this isn't anything against you, it's just that when we get information about a controversial incident, it's best to find more than one source). Otherwise, it's likely the section will keep getting removed. Acalamari 17:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Acalamari is correct. --Yamla 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it a reliable source? He never tells gossip. People sent concerned emails to him about the issue and thats why he posted that. -Cena

He may not post gossip, but what about the people who send him E-mails? They could be sending him things that aren't true. As I said, you want to put a controversy section in, so you should provide at least two sources. One source isn't enough. Acalamari 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just leave it, I found out that Tommy has some kind of a grudge on Aly & Aj. Their attire is no different than it ever was, I looked through pics over the span of a year. I bought into what he was saying but people such as the editor of Christianity today told me not to buy into it. -Cena

I am glad you researched the controversy. Good luck on future editing. Acalamari 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PluggedIn (division of FOTF expressed some concern about the girl's recent career choices and they weren't too impressed with the second album. Super Sweet Second Thoughts about Aly & AJ WAVY 10 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Um, they haven't graduated high school yet. Well, one of them hasn't at least. NEXT! Graduating top during middle or elementary schools isn't noteworthy.

They both did. Eliana Eliana

Uh, yes they have. 23:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate Articles for Aly and AJ[edit]

As someone said in the Alyson Michalka talk page: "The pages are very similar, and we could always just have an "AJ" and "Aly" section for each until their careers diverge significantly."

This should be discussed and decided upon.

The Ðark Crusader 03:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, they do have some distinct acting credits, most notably Aly's role on Phil of the Future. *Dan T.* 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It's one role. It isn't worth a whole separate article. As stated previously, "we could always just have an "AJ" and "Aly" section for each until their careers diverge significantly." The Ðark Crusader 04:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
No merge. Alyson appears to have enough notability acting-wise to justify having her own article, without even taking her musical career into consideration. Merging would only create confusion. --Bongwarrior 04:41, 30 June 2007
Enough notability acting-wise? One role in a T.V. show and three roles in T.V. movies (only one of which was done without her sister) is considered notable enough to warrant a separate article? Until her career is not directly tied to her sister's, I don't think she's notable enough to have her own article. A sub-section in the main article would be the most she should get. Also your statement "Merging would only create confusion" is most obviously a matter of personal opinion. Merging would put all the information into one article, instead of have it spanning three separate articles. One would assume that this would be less confusing to most users.The Ðark Crusader 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Despite the similarities in their work, they are not ubiquitously associated like Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen and other musical groups with with siblings still have their unique biographical articles. In fact, I would suggest that current biographical content be moved their respective articles.--Kevin586 18:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
They are ubiquitously associated. Again, with the exception of Alyson's role on Phil of the Future and her role in Now You See It... and Amanda's roles as a guest on a few shows, there is nothing notable that separates them. Their minor separate roles could easily be summarized in within this article. Also, moving biographical content in their respective articles seems somewhat pointless. If you read the Biographies, they are extremely similar and we would be creating three articles that say the same thing. The Ðark Crusader 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Alyson Michalka is well known in the tween/teen crowd because of her role on Phil of the Future (which is still aired several times a day on Disney) and countless commercials on the Disney Channel. Phil was a top rated show on Disney and ABC Saturday Mornings before it ended. Her sister is more-so a tag-a-long for the music career. I can understand AJ not having a separate article, but Alyson Michalka should. As previously mentioned, they are not like the Olsen Twins or even Dylan and Cole Sprouse or Hanson (band) (and even Hanson (band) has separate articles for each band member). filmation 11:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out something mentioned in Amanda's talk page: "the duo passes WP:BIO but the girls individually do not. - Otto4711". Keeping the separate articles is below Wikipedia's Biography standards. I wouldn't mind as much if there was a possibility of expanding their respective articles, but there's just not enough information to do so. Alyson and Amanda are obviously rising stars, and I don't doubt that eventually their paths will diverge and they will become more notable, but until then they don't need separate articles. The Ðark Crusader 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree both of there pages are sort already, there is no need for them to have sparete pages.Ultimaterasengan 18:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea... leave them seperate. Alyson has had different appearances on TV and AJ has had different appearances as well. Pus minor things that seperate them like... trivia Markcambrone 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So? they should still have combind pages, there is no need for them to have sperate ones, not to mention they pracitly say the same thingUltimaterasengan 17:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that you shouldn't merge them. The articles would be hard to merge, and also have a fare bit of imformation on them. Mrx9898 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

They wouldn't be hard to merge at all, mabye a little, but we could just put a line to separte the articales or something like that.Janpanrocks56 12:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to merge AJ's article with Alyson's and have "AJ Michalka", "Amanda Joy Michalka", etc. redirect to the article "Alyson Michalka" (at least until AJ's career has gained a notable independence from Aly's career), where Aly's achievements would be discussed in detail and AJ's forthcomings are highlighted? "Alyson Michalka" would focus on the sisters' budding (and separate yet intertwined) careers as actresses while a co-existing "Aly & AJ" article would feature the musical achievements of the two-girl band with in-depth information about the band's rise to fame, etc. If executed with extreme discretion to follow the instruction of the previous sentence, the only real dilemma in having these two separate articles would be the overlapping of chronology (which couldn't be avoided anyway, as history cannot occur anachronously). This being said, the future of the debated three articles will weigh heavily on the success or failure of either AJ or the band. If Amanda Joy becomes more prolific in her acting than Aly & AJ does in the music industry, then my previous idea of two articles ("Alyson Michalka" and "Aly & AJ") would have to yield to accommodate the newly risen (and autonomous) star with her own article: "AJ Michalka". If, however, the band gains more renown than AJ does in her personal career, it would be best to leave the article count at two("Alyson Michalka" and "Aly & AJ"), as AJ would be a mere extension of Aly. (Just in case she reads this, even though I shouldn't give my opinion: I hope AJ does as well, if not better than, her sister, Aly. To the fellow "talkers", please disregard the previous sentence.) Thank you for your time. Sushisticks 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we jsut keep it as it is (no merge!)? They have accomplished different things. "Aly & AJ" article is aobut them as a duo. THe separates are about them independently. Aly & Aj is just a stage name! Eliana Eliana 21:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I VOTE NO MERGE!

who cares if they acopleshed different things! There articales are very sort, they should be merged! And most people want them meerged anyway!Ultimaterasengan 16:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the cleanest way to organize things is to have a separate article for each girl, and have this article only discuss their joint career as "Aly & AJ". Just because the articles are short, doesn't mean they shouldn't be their own independent entities. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper (WP:PAPER). Also, Mary-Kate and Ashley have almost exclusively produced material together. This is clearly not the case with Aly and AJ. --Stux 19:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If anything their discography should be merged here, and their biographical information placed back in their respective articles. --Stux 19:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think that we should keep them the way they are. There is enough information on each one for a good sized article. If there is any info that overlaps then they can be reduced. But I don't think merging would be a good idea especially because they are both still currently famous. If more info becomes available soon then it would just be more work to redivide them up again. Ospinad 22:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Separate. I know Alyson Michalka only. It's pointless to read about her sister in her article. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 12:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


I think it would be stupid because this is a BAND and the other pages are about the INDIVIDUAL so it would make NO sense to merge them. just as an example that would be like merging gene simmons with kiss o and the capital is to add emphasis i hope you like it =D\ 23:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they should NOT merge them. Like you said, this is about a BAND. They shouldn't merge the biography pages with their band page. It's dumb. 23:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged together. First of all, Aly seems to have a distinct acting career compared to AJ's. Second, Aly's and Aj's own article should focus their careers on acting while the Aly & AJ article should focus them as a musical group with little references to their acting roles. Jairus Garin 23:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Aly & AJ: Monkees fans?[edit]

I watched thier recent MTV birthday special, and when they were opening thier presents, clearly displayed front and center was the Monkees' 1967 album HEADQUARTERS...looked like a vynal copy, at that. Anyone know if the girls are big Monkees fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Better suited here. WAVY 10 Fan 14:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

DS game[edit]

I know that they have a DS game comeing out. Should we add it?Ultimaterasengan (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you merge…[edit]

Messy Thinking (talk) If Aly and A.J. (individually) become part of the Aly & AJ page, are their separate profiles going to be protected? And will a click of their names be made to lead to said profiles? —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


I removed alternative rock since i believe that they are not alt rock. They are simply teen pop. Alt rock is like Smashing Pumpkins, Foo fighters, Green Day, Fugazi etc. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover they do not have Hardcore, Punk or Post Punk influences, therfore making them NOT Alt Rock. DavidJJJ (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

August 18, 2008 - I have removed the "Category:All-women bands" tag as they do not record or perform live with other female musicians. When they do solo/acoustic sets one could say they were an "all female band" however simply being two females who have a back up band does not make them an "all female band". As examples you could site Joan Jett, Lita Ford and Suzi Quatro. All females who play however they all had/have backing bands who are not 100% female. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


I think that we need apicture for the article. DavidJJJ (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Aly and AJ Rock and Roll Mysteries isnt in the article. Unless I missed it,that should be in there --LilMissNicole+++.;+= (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "blender interview" :
    • [ Tweenage Riot.] ''Blender'' magazine, June 2006.
    • * Aly & AJ was nominated in September 2006 for ''Favorite Contemporary Inspirational Artist of the Year'' at the 2006 [[American Music Awards]], but lost the award to [[Kirk Franklin]] during the November 21 presentation.<ref name="AMA award">[ 2006 American Music Awards.] Accessed December 11, 2006.

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong names in the film sections[edit]

Hi i was reading throuh this since im a Aly & AJ (call me obssesesed if you want i dont care) any way i have all almbunms movies up todate on and i noticed on the part were it says what films their in. I noticed in Cow Belles it says AJ Plays Taylor Callum. It's actualy Aly who plays Taylor (trust me i've watched the film long enough to know who playd who) any way i don't liked editing these pages my self so i thout it's best that you knew about this error Thanks

Amsith501. (Call me Sandy) 29/9/08 3:30PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmith501 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

Under personal life - which I assume to mean items not related to their performing career - all you can come up with is a mention of a stalker?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence as it really isn't that notable and doesn't seem to belong in an encyclopedia article about the duo.-Andrew c [talk] 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Aly and AJ[edit]

Aly and AJ are christian.they are more rock then pop.I love thier song is awesome!rock on ALY AND AJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


I have just reverted everything to do with their rename to "78violet", as there was no "confirmation" that I could find, and it was all sourced with Twitter. I also re-moved the page back to "Aly & AJ" for now as well. Can we at least wait until sources more reliable than Twitter are released to see if they really have changed their name or not? Thanks. Acalamari 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This page seems to provide confirmation. I will go ahead and delete the redirect at 78violet to make way for the move. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

78violet vs 78 violet[edit]

There have been various attempts at page moves between these two spellings. Can editors please stop moving the page without discussion and provide some reliable sources about the spelling/spacing of the name. Once we have consensus on the right spelling we can move the page (or not). --Slp1 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This page should be enough, it's Aly & AJ themselves saying how it should be spelt, look at the profile it's from, it says "Verified Account" and those can't be faked as it says here Irish Sylar (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems good enough. A few reliableish sources say something similar.e.g.[1] I will move it.--Slp1 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Finally, it's over for now.Irish Sylar (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It has been 11 days since the supposed change, yet nothing other than one tweet. Generally, a change in names isn't just spur of the moment, and goes with changes to websites, etc. Their website still says Aly&AJ, and there has been no announcements on that site as of yet. I argue that the lack of an official annoucnement from their website, the name of their website not changing, and the fact that recent tweets have referred to themselves in both ways, is enough to move it back to Aly & AJ. Yes, the twitter account is verified, but it would not be the first time a band played a joke on their fans through a social networking site. --Fbifriday (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum for "Daniel" and the "interiew'[edit]

This section is to discuss what the title implies. Ging287 (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Sims 2: Pets?[edit]

I noticed there is no reference to The Sims 2: Pets expansion. They did Chemicals React for the Pets expansion, including a music video, and such huge Sims fans already that they were able to write the song in "Simlish" without any help from Maxis.

Here is an article about it... AbsolutGrndZer0 (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)