Talk:Contemporary Christian music/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Undue weight to controversy?

The prose of the 'controversy' section in larger than that of any other section. I believe it is far too large, and is giving undue weight to a minority or fringe viewpoint (that is, that only a certain type of music is permissible ie. legalism). I think we should shorten this to a paragraph or two, and change the overall tone to be more neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

CCM vs Music by Christians - particularly alt genres

see

Paul foord 4 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Not impressed by the generic explanation when you removed my link twice.

Walter,

I see that you are a fellow Christian and a fellow Christian musician, although being 12 years younger than I, it's not likely that you lived through the early days of the "Jesus Movement" as I did.

As a longtime Web Site content developer, K-12 Textbook editor, English Professor, Bible teacher, Music teacher, professional writer, and a one-time "Jesus Musician," I've recently started a project (SchoolOfTheRock.com) to help disciple the 18-15-year olds I minister to regularly on issues of contemporary Christian living, especially in areas related to worship and Bible teaching. Despite an ad here or there on the site to help pay a fraction of the site's expenses, you'd be hard-pressed to call it a commercial endeavor. (I pay the site's manifold expenses as a "write-off" from my professional consulting business.)

Because I grew up with people who hate Contemporary Christian music (and still run into them from time to time), I thought it would be nice to include articles that show some of the ways in which Biblical living, and Biblical worship through contemporary musical forms tie together.

To find links I could include from my pages, I went looking for any internet articles that provided insightful, balanced, detailed, and fact-based accounts of the history of Contemporary Christian music. I didn't find any that fulfilled all of those qualificatiosn. Your Wikipedia summary IS useful, and is a good introduction, VERY appropriate for Wikipedia, but I wanted something that presented more details and presented them in a stronger narrative that showed the history of Christian music from the musician's perspective.

So I wrote an fact-based, detailed, well-organized article that included, not only the history of the industry, but also personal experiences as well as the experiences of friends who were either touring artists or industry professionals.

You might be put off by a couple of paragraphs in first person, but if you've ever read Paul Baker's books, you'll find all the proof you need that it's an accurate history, even to the minor details.

Or maybe you're put off by some of the "negative" statements about dark times in the history of Christian music. But the sources you cite and books you recommend have sections that are FAR more negative. Also, I carefully chose details that would get the point across with inspiring the reader to outrage on certain topics, as a fully-detailed account would have done.

I've also "vetted" the article for content, balance, and tone by running it past former touring artists and Christian broadcasting professionals who lived through the same era. I have gotten nothing but enthusiastic response.

If you can find another Internet-published article (or ten) on the same subject that is as well written, organized, balanced, and fact-based as my article, please let me know. I'd be VERY glad to link to them from my web site. I'd also like to know why you don't link to those articles from the Wiki article? If they exist, that is.

Finally, I confess that I am at a loss as to why you consider my article either to be a "commercial advertisement" or a "personal blog" (both accusations came through the message to me, though it was largely "boilerplate," so I'm not sure which part was really yours). I recognize that is is NOT a Wikipedia article, but it is a fact-based, detailed, and hopefully balanced article nonetheless, far more so than quite a few other article links I see on similar Wikipedia pages. It is not advertising any specific product, or even any commercial web site. BTW CCM magazine is commercial - they cost money to subscribe to and have LOADS of advertising. Why do you have THEIR link, if you are seeking to avoid even the appearance of supportiing a commercial enterprise.

Also, the article dos NOT contain unverifiable personal ramblings or rants, as a blog would. (I publish blogs in other web sites so I know the difference.)

Perhaps you object to the fact that I posted the link myself. Would it be a better article if I asked an industry contact to post the link? Or maybe you should read the article yourself and let me know specifically what you feel is unsuitable about it?

If you've lost the link, it's at: http://www.schooloftherock.com/html/a_brief_history_of_contemporar.html

Frankly, I'm hoping that as a fellow musician you find the article edifying, exhorting, and comforting. And if you ARE aware of anything "wrong" with it on any level, please let me know, because I strive for proessionalism.

Sorry for the VERY long comment, and God bless, Paul Race


198.134.2.62 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ELNO 11 states "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)". You are not a recognized expert and so the link to the "history" does not qualify to be included in the external links section. It's difficult to include all of that information in the edit summary. That's why I left it on your talk page. If I didn't remove it someone else would. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
More to the point Paul, you're not even notable by Wikipedia standards, which is what is required. Your material may be a good read, but it's not acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines to add to this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You said: "The issue is simple though. You're not a recognized expert and so adding your page violates WP:ELNO. "--Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't know any more about me than I do about you, so a balanced, fact-based, well-organized, professionally-written article that has been vetted by industry experts does not deserve a link from a page you edit. You must have some supernatural way of divining that your qualifications to report on this topic must tower over mine, or you would never have the nerve to make such an assumption. So I will let it go for now, as long as you don't mind me adding this exchange as a humorous footnote to the article.

Did I mention that my blog subscribers number in the thousands? I'm sure they'll enjoy this story. If you ever decide to write me back, please go to ANY of my web pages and use the contact page, as I have no stomach for arguments in a public forum.

God bless and help you both with your music and with your ongoing efforts to make the contents of YOUR page appropriate, balanced, and accurate - those are areas in which you have my complete support.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Race (talk • contribs) 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The notability guidelines indicate who is and isn't notable. For WP:EL, (which is the same page as WP:ELNO) the guideline is that recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. If you did, there would be a Paul Race article. There isn't, so you don't meet the notability criteria for people. If you were to create an article for yourself, it would be reviewed and rejected if you don't signify how you meet the notability guidelines. With that said, even if you were to somehow meet the guidelines and have an article created, you wouldn't be a recognized authority on this subject.
Your blog may have thousands of followers, but that doesn't make you a recognized authority, particularly when there are potentially billions of readers. Also, particularly not when you have indicated that you have students who are required to follow your blog. It would be a better case if you were paid by CCM magazine for your opinions and knowledge. Do you have a book on the subject published by a recognized publishing house (as opposed to self-published)?
Again, while the content may be wonderful and informative, if it breaks Wikipedia's guidelines, it will be removed. If not by me, by another editor who won't even discuss it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Walter, please help me. I'm having trouble finding the Walter Görlitz article that proves you are notable. Sorry, I couldn't resist. This gets funnier and funnier, especially as you misread my notes and make up stuff I haven't said. I DID mean what I said when I said have a great spring, and good luck with your own ministries. God bless - Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Race (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand. I've explained it every time and I won't be repeating myself. But I'll make a point. My cousin, once removed, happens to have been a German author and a recognized authority on the German military: de:Walter Görlitz. If he was still alive, he could contribute, to German Wikipedia, and reference his blog. He could also add it as an external link on an appropriate subject, but not on another distant cousin: Andreas Görlitz because, he's not a recognized authority on football (soccer). He couldn't add an external link to the German CCM article either.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just applying the guidelines used on Wikipedia on the articles that I watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul Baker's book is online, but the site is blacklisted?

Several Wikipedia articles about CCM and related subjects refer to Paul Baker's "Contemporary Christian Music", which has been out of print for at least 15 years. The complete online text is published on ccel dot us, but the site is blacklisted. I think it would be a good reference for people interested in CCM history. Do you have any idea why the site was blacklisted? Thanks - Paul Paul Race (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I put the npov thing on because the criticisms section was removed completely and subsequent edits have been simply adding more positives about the genre.

Well, I feel that this page is quite objective. However, I grabbed the "criticisms" section from an older version and reworked it a little bit. Thoughts? --Snow1215 08:41, Apr 28, 2005
I assume that the npov thing can be removed now, since the "criticisms" section has been added back to the page. I hope this is okay. -- Snow1215 12:13, Apr 29, 2005

Why is there a link to Mind Garage?

Mind Garage had no direct relationship or influence on "Jesus Music," "Contemporary Worship," or "Contemporary Christian Music." Why do they keep popping up on these sites, while there are no links to the sites of artists who actually contributed? Paul Race (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to remove it. It was added out of self-promotion, but since I am a critic of that editor, it would appear biased if I removed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Evie

Admitted that Evie didn't belong in the list with Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, and Andre Crouch. But in her own way, she was a precurser to Jesus music, and by recording songs by Larry Norman and others helped build a bridge between the largely "counter-culture" Jesus Music genre and the "legitimate" Gospel industry. Also, her stuff sounded trite to me at the time, but the company was positioning her to compete with people like Dionne Warwick and Petula Clark, not Grace Slick. No, there's not room in the article as it stands now. . . . Paul Race (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Paul Race (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. She should be mentioned. She was the top-seller in the late 70s before Amy Grant took over. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

History Chronology

Would it be helpful to break the history into periods, and align the artists listed with those periods?

Pre-Jesus music - Ralph Carmichael, camp-meeting songs like "we are One in the Spirit" (approx 1964-1969)

Jesus music - Early Larry Norman and Andrae Crouch and a host of artists that recorded and toured outside the "Gospel Music" industry, such as John Fischer, Love Song, Randy Stonehill, Honeytree, etc. (Plus maybe a note that Evie, an industry-supported musician who was NOT a member of the Jesus Movement, showed her support by recording songs by Larry Norman and others who could not get played on Christian radio) . . . . . (approx 1969-1974)

Early Commercial CCM - When Gospel labels finally started to take notice - 2nd Chapter of Acts, Keith Green, Randy Matthews . . . (approx. 1974-1981)

Mainstream CCM - When "secular labels" started to notice and invest heavily in CCM, and promoted Christian acts into mainstream channels - Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, D.C. Talk, Jars of Clay, Stephen Curtis Chapman, Avalon, etc., (approx. 1981-2000, when recession caused some retrenching in the industry)

Worship-fueled CCM - A rising interest in contemporary worship fuels growth of artists with a worship emphasis, as well as encouraging mainstream CCM artists to release worship albums. Paul Baloche, Chris Tomlin, Matt Redman, Jerem Camp. (approx 1995-today)

Yes there was overlap, plus there were many artists whose careers spanned two or more of the above cycles. Some Jesus musicians like Honeytree managed to stay around long enough to draw some advantage from the early commercial CCM momentum, and other groups like Petra managed to stay alive from the earliest days until CCM went mainstream. But a breakdown like this gives a much clearer view of the growth of CCM than a monolithic listing of artists who would never have shared the same stage, either from chronological or philosophical reasons.

Whatcha think? Paul Race (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the last category isn't accurate. It's only one branch of modern CCM. There are many CCM bands that don't include worship and there are many earlier Jesus Music and early CCM acts that included worship music on their albums and in-concert. The trend should be mentioned but it's not an era that I can see. A better division might be the takeover era of CMM, where mainstream labels started buying the smaller CCM labels which would be 1980 to the present. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
True the secular takeover of the "Christian" music industry continues to have consequences, such as Sony's purchase of Benson, which gives them control over catalogs of Zondervan, and many others. But in the recession of the early 2000s, the big secular companies retrenched and dumped many artists at the same time. The assumption was that the growth potential for "Christian" music has plateaued, and the market was saturated. In spite of breakthrough hits like "I Can Only Imagine," the largest growth area of Christian music since then has been Worship. I've seen figures that support that, but I can't track them down at the moment. Maybe the best approach would be to say that the last decade saw a greater proportional emphasis on Worship music. (P.S. as a worship leader for some fourteen years, from the late 1980s to early 2000s, I'm well aware of the contributions that Jesus Music and early-to-mid CCM made to our worship catalog, as well as how it kept groups like Petra going when they'd apparently run out of other material. It just didn't wasn't as large, proportionately as it is today.)

Paul Race (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Very much a US phenomenon

While secular styles of American pop music have become hugely popular pretty much all over the world, it seems to me that CCM is still pretty much an American phenomenon with fairly little takeup outside the US, including majority-Christian countries. The exception being of course those types of Christianity that are American in origin. For example in central Europe, Pentecostalists (which are relatively few people) and such will listen to and promote CCM but "your Grandmother's style" Christians, such as "normal" Lutherans and Catholics, will not even know it, even when they're young and fairly active in the Church. We have our own modern Christian music but it is a very non-commercial affair; it's more like folk music and the usual way of experiencing it is singing it yourself from faded out xeroxed note sheets with maybe an acoustic guitar playing along.

If you can word this better it might make sense to include this information. Currently the article is very US centric. -- 92.226.93.64 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's very much opinion rather than fact. CCM is very much prevalent here in the UK for example - there are a number of CCM radio stations and let's not forget that Delirious? achieved some significant chart successes in the UK as well as being very popular abroad. waggers (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Shall we do an inventory of non-American CCM artists? There are very few. Yes, there are Newsboys, who have relocated to the US and now only have one Australian musician. Same thing with Rebeca St. James. There are other Australian artists. Canadian artists and I have a number of UK artists in my collection as well. Sweden made a big hit in the late 80s and early 90s. I have one German album from the 80s and two current artists. One from South Africa who have subsequently disbanded. However, my collection is about 10:1 American (despite living in Canada). We should add information about CCM in other nations, but not give it undue weight. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
See Latin Christian music, some of the artists are in CCM style. In ictu oculi (talk)
There's already a very good inventory of CCM artists at http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/artists/, and while it includes several US artists there are an awful lot of others in there too. I do agree with you though that the article as it stands is very US-centric and needs a more global perspective. waggers (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Removed the tag. Feel free to improve it, but the tag is not necessary as explained above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Updated artists

I removed the majority listed and took the top artists from Christian Songs. I also kept Steven Curtis Chapman, Amy Grant, Jars of Clay and Michael W. Smith because they were key to the industry in the 80s and 90s. If we would like to add others, please suggest criteria to do so. Avalon, BarlowGirl, David Crowder Band, Rebecca St. James and Third Day were removed in the process, although it wouldn't take much to convince me to restore Third Day to the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all changes except removing Third Day. Move didn't have a number one it had two top-ten singles and stayed on the charts over a year; even still the band's 08 album Revelation was a hit and they've have multiple number ones on the CS chart. I'd keep Chapman as a main artist, though: he isn't as big as he once was but he is still very relevant, producing No. 1 and No. 2 albums along with top five and top ten singles. I'm also not sure Aaron Shust belongs - while "My Savior My God" and "My Hope Is In You" were massive he hasn't had much success otherwise and his last two albums barely even charted on the Christian Albums chart. I'd suggest Tenth Avenue North as a replacement - they've had six top-five singles on Christian Songs (their last two went number one and the number-two peaking "By Your Side" was number three on the decade-end chart) and have had two top forty albums on the Billboard 200.
As for the historic section, I'd suggest adding dc Talk. They were the biggest Christian act of the 90s in terms of album sales and would have followed up in the 2000s if they hadn't had disbanded. Toa Nidhiki05 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
See. I told you that it wouldn't take much to convince me to add Third Day. Adding dc Talk is also reasonable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hah, yep. I'm surprised at how different the CCM scene is as compared to back then... The only artists that are still big that were around in the 90s are Third Day, tobyMac, and Newsboys. The only 80s guy that is still big is SCC and even he is slipping lately. Toa Nidhiki05 03:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's no mention of Delirious? anywhere in the article. They were by far the biggest CCM band in the UK in the 90's and early 2000s, as well as being very successful in other countries. WaggersTALK 10:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Were they CCM, Christian rock or modern worship? Not much more rock than Third Day though. Regardless, you do understand the criteria for updating the artists in the first section. They did not meet the criteria. We don't really discuss the state of the industry outside of the United States, and we should mention it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The best thing they have going for inclusion is they had multiple top 20 hits in the UK. Come to think of it, Newsboys and Hillsong could also go in an international section despite the fact all have crossed over to the US and the Newsboys are practically American at this point with Tait as the lead singer. Toa Nidhiki05 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Only the drummer, Duncan Phillips, in the four-man band is Austrialian. The other three are American. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, the Newsboys aren't Australian at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jon Gibson and others

I couldn't believe Gibson wasn't mentioned in the history of CCM with all his accomplishments/influences as well as others who would openly write songs about God/Jesus: Stevie Wonder ("Have a Talk with God" is just one example of many), Mariah Carey ("Make it Happen" and others), Hammer (needs no explanation, his article gives many examples if you're not familiar but I'll just type "Pray" as one), etc. Van Morrison and U2 and Bob Dylan are great examples. The Fray? Even though I own some of their music, I'm not familiar with their connection with "Christianity" and it's not as common knowledge in my opinion... nevertheless, the others I mentioned should stay in case someone is considering reverting my "good faith" contributions. If there are ANY questions, please discuss here first before creating an edit war or attempting to monopolize the content. I thought it necessary to type this section just in case. P.s. This article could use a lot more info (background). Perhaps one day I will work on it. For instance: Keith and Steve Green, David Meece, Happy Goodman Family, Gaither Vocal Band (original/new Gaithers), Rich Mullins, Carman, DeGarmo and Key (who also "crossed-over" and had videos air on MTV), etc. etc. At least the Imperials are listed [briefly mentioned]. Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: CCM is not a "white-only" genre and isn't a "southern gospel/music" genre. CONTEMPORARY is also pop, hip-hop, r&b, country, jazz, dance and rock if it's mainstream and popular. It was an alternative to secular music with the same style/sound but with christian lyrics. Kirk Franklin (and The Family or God's Property) is a good example in the late 90s with their cross-over hit "Stomp". Or another hit called "Lean on Me" (including Bono of U2, R. Kelly, Crystal Lewis, etc.) among others. Many urban acts aren't even mentioned as CCM. The Tennesse-based comment should be cited/sourced. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Others would be Johnny Cash (considered secular) and Randy Stonehill (CCM pioneer). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit (before I saw this -- though that doesn't matter) because it isn't according to the source given (the same goes for my second edit). You can re-add any if you supply reliable verifiable source(s). --Musdan77 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
They're legitimate examples per the articles they connect to but I'm going to add more details in a different context, instead of along with those already given within the pre-existing sentences/subject. Perhaps I'll create a whole entire section just for them and others I mentioned above with sources. Therefore, I'll go ahead and expand the article as I had planned to later. Thanks for the revert actually, I prefer to be more specific with my next entry (even though I think the exclusion of my edit was unnecessary). To be continued... 99.129.112.89 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Completed/resolved. Please discuss before making any changes (which I don't think is necessary). Most if not all is already contained/expanded within the musician's articles. Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, a few different problems with your edits: First and foremost, you only used external links instead of inline citations, which is not only incorrect, it just looks a mess. The sources also need to corroborate with what the text is saying. Your first paragraph should not be the beginning of the section; it should be merged with the third paragraph. And GVB didn't start until the '80s, so they couldn't "pave the way" for the genre. Also, this is not a place for a list of artists. As you can see on this page, and in the archives, as well as the hidden text above the lead, this article has had a history of debating on which ones should be included. So, we've had enough problems with the one in the lead. Adding more lists just adds more problems. And one more thing, the word "eventually" is too vague. It needs to be more specific (with source). I will wait a while and give you a change to make improvements before taking any action. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
"Wait awhile"? What if I didn't get back on for a few days? There needs to be a consensus, not an edit war between you and I. Having the info added is fine. It's not incorrect. And I also do references that way and they get cleaned up later by bot or whoever. It is NOT a reason to remove or "take action". The sources do coincide with the text (ie. Kirk Franklin honored by CCM is a source I added although didn't elaborate on within the section), please take the time to read them if in doubt or the actual articles of the artist which already mention the info typed. The section required expansion and diversity. The first paragraph precedes the later-dated info as a better intro. If there are a few word choices that could be changed/improved, that's one thing, but to revert everything is inappropriate and not "policy". There needs to be others involved. A concensus is required, not just your impression/opinions (with all due respect and without any offense). And you may want to read my edit summaries. Please do not make this something more complicated. I just didn't go listing people and not provide appropriate "facts". You seem to be cherry-picking. The guidelines you posted on my talk page that I'm already familiar with is something you may want to review about the process as well. If the references need cleaning up, or some words changed/improved, by all means assist. I am also working on it gradually as able (not on your time-table). I can give more info about the artists after their name, HOWEVER, this article isn't about them and should have limited info about them. That is why it links to their articles. Not supposed to go into details about something the reader can learn more about on their articles. You don't "build up" or "put down" anything about anyone within a related article. It's not like I listed everyone, I gave influential musicians within the genre. Thanks and have a good night! P.S. I'm not sitting here watching what you have to say every minute of the day. Until I return, the info can stay. If others disagree or agree as well, please contribute to this discussion. Sorry if this "changes" the way you or others want the article to be, but is not Wiki's objective. These "good faith" edits are by all means legit. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I did not add both uses of "eventually" to the section but have fixed it. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Your well-intended argument is that editors can't just list random acts/artists/bands/musicians within the article. I get that. However, that is NOT what I did. I created different sections/topics with context. This is very unproductive/unwarranted and so I will leave it as is for now and make improvements as I see necessary and have time. I can also work on the source/reference formats later perhaps, it's just not something I can devote time to at the moment. By all means, feel free to fix them. God forbid. (smile) Nonetheless, my effort complies with Wiki for the most part. Our time could be better spent in my opinion. Peace! :) P.S. GVB was just an effort to mention the "parent" Gaithers in general (per sources), but it has been corrected. Thanks for your understanding/cooperation. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the party. The issue isn't whether Gibson should or shouldn't be listed, it's whether there's a reliable source to support it. He had a lot of singles, bit I don't believe it was 22. Find a source to support it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It is on his article already! As are other cites that verify this. That cite is from his actual website. Go to his article and view ALL the sources. You are making mistakes here. You don't remove it all, you discuss. You can prove it isn't true. It is according to Billboard and Gospel awards. And all the other info is fine, you don't remove everything... You just want to monopolize it, because that is the only other explanation since the info is legit. IE. Kirk Franklin and Winans and Gaithers, etc. Find it hard to believe you read all those cites or took the time to read the related articles. Seems you just want to revert people's work you don't like? Your actions are inappropriate. We need to have other editors involved to "arbitrate" since you will continue to revert to get your way. You have something against Gibson and all the rest? This isn't the place to smother facts/truth. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
What's in this article already? A link to an Amazon.com listing of a book: http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Contemporary-Christian-Music-Worship/dp/0313344256
  • SCROLL DOWN TO "Book Description" (UGH!)
A list of albums? http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/cms_content/1324760288?page=1458915&sp=1002
  • CLICK ANOTHER SECTION (INCOMPLETE ADDRESS)
A vanity site: http://www.praise-and-worship.com/contemporary-christian-music.html
  • ERROR
The only really good reference, but still not a WP:RS http://voices.yahoo.com/using-contemporary-christian-music-during-worship-363265.html?cat=34
Another non RS: http://www.christianmusicarchive.com/artist/happy-goodmans
  • MISTAKE
An empty page: http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/the-oak-ridge-boys/videos/
I am not going through each one of the terrible references. Please learn what makes a good reference and what constitutes a reliable source. Your links don't apply to either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
No one is saying that what you're writing is or isn't true because that's not the point. Nor is it about what I do and don't like: I love Jon Gibson's music. (YOU EDIT ON HIS PAGE SO YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT I TYPED WAS CORRECT.) It's about reliable sources. If you want to discuss it and learn, we'll be happy to do that. If you want to edit war, you may also do that, but you won't last very long. And for the record, any further edits here would likely violate the three revert rule. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Terrible references? You have a bad attitude and it's not something you should be doing on Wiki. First of all, you don't need sources for facts that are already mentioned on the related article. You read the artist's article and it shows they have written/sang christian music. I was just elaborating on this article since it did not give a broad enough example. They have albums and songs already provided on the article. It doesn't require sources. The articles they relate to are sourced. It's not new info! It's not original work. You should stop belittling me and attacking my abilities. You sound very immature and it violated policy. Those sources were to verify they actually produced christian music. They aren't even needed. The entire article isn't even sourced (barely). You only want the people listed YOU want. That's the truth. You also remove the cites that aren't good. You don't revert the entire section. You are power-tripping and it is inappropriate. You never know who is editing and you need to give the benefit of the doubt. Remove what doesn't comply, prove it doesn't comply and keep what is good. That is the way you do things. Other editors/admin will need to assist during this dispute. You are not the final word. If you're not going through them all then you are not required to remove it all. P.S. I also believe you must have more than one account. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, terrible references. It's not personal. I'm sorry you think I'm trying to make it personal and I won't respond that way to you.
The people (some are bands) listed are those who are described based on a criteria discussed above. If you really want to discuss the references, pick one statement and the references you provided to support it and I'll show how they're not good references. I have already listed six and shown how they don't meet Wikiepdia's requirements, but if you'd like to question me, which you're free to do, ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
If you think I have more than one account, you may take it up at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
I am not the final word, as can be seen above. Feel free to ask specific questions, stop the personal attacks and work at improving the content here rather than add poorly referenced material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, I just checked and almost every paragraph is referenced. The lists of artists are per consensus as discussed above (Dove winners). Anything else you'd like to have referenced, feel free to use the {{Citation needed}} template. Provided that no material is removed, you wouldn't be edit warring by adding it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're the one attacking me. Don't spin it around on me. You did that. And yes, I want this to go to a noticeboard but I am worn out with you and this for the moment. I actually have a life. I'm on the tail-end of this drama. You provide me with why each one is not right. You have the info, I'm not asking each one individually. I also do not need to source what's sourced on their article and already "proven". I will also not deal with you, I want someone unrelated to you and myself. And I will check into you using multiple accounts and your long history of reverting just so your agenda is enforced. Good night! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not doing anymore work on it. YOU reverted it. You replace it and add "citation required" (or rather one you'll be happy with or others actually). You don't just undo everything, belittle me and my editing, make yourself seem right and then tell me to do more to make it right. You know what can be done to fix them. You know overall and in general it is ALL good. Does it maybe need better sources or wording, etc.? Perhaps. So we leave it as is or what is good and discuss further as we work at it a little bit at a time... and you add "error" citation templates. But you don't just revert EVERYTHING, create an edit war, put me down, bully me with messages on my talk page and then tell me it needs this and that to be okay with YOU. Do that yourself. Fix the references. Include the templates. It's unproductive to be lazy and just undo everything editors do that you know in the "big picture" is right. YOU just don't like the sources and Gibson's and the other articles are proof they are legit. Their pages are full of sources. You put a message here letting me know to change them and work on it and I comply. You don't undo it and then be a total jerk to me/people. You removed good sources and for that you are wrong. IE. GMA and the music/christian/news articles, etc. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Responded to your "terrible editing" comments and added new sources, one including NY Times. Some I removed were (see below section for more): [1][2][3]99.129.112.89 (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The CCM is not CCM magazine

− − You keep linking contemporary Christian music when you mean to link to CCM Magazine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − Not true. I already connected it to CCM Magazine when it applied. Please discuss in talk page, do not create edit wars. It's unproductive. This can go to an arbitration/concensus/resolution page if necessary. It's all fine, just not how you want it (as is many other edits I see you have hystorically reverted). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − : Please resolve in talk page, do not create edit wars while a discussion is already in process. Wiki does not promote editors getting their way with articles. Thanks! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − :: I saw it twice. I removed it twice. Contrary to what you wrote on my talk page, and I have moved here, I am not edit warring: you are. I'm sorry you feel that I am getting in your way, I am simply preserving Wikipedia from bad edits, mostly bad references. − :: Please stop now and learn to edit. You removed the welcome message here. Feel free to see the information provided there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − How are they bad sources? You are not supposed to attack editors. You typed "learn to edit". There needs to be a consensus. I am requesting this go to an arbitration/resolution article to discuss. You have a history of just reverting things you don't like. That is wrong! You created the edit war, not me. The info is correct. Seems like I'm the one getting in your way as you have an "agenda" and want to sabatoge my efforts (and others). I took time doing that and it seems like you and the other editor are "jealous"? 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − : I explained how they're bad sources on the article's talk page. − : I am not attacking you or any other editor, I am protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you feel attacked. That can happen when you think you're doing a good job, throw a lot of effort into editing and have most or all of it removed. − : There does appear to be consensus: two editors have complained about your additions to the article and it's clear that the additions do not meet Wikpedia's standards for reliable sources. − : I have a history of reverting, but it's not based on what I do or don't like. There's no sabotage, no jealousy. I'm sorry you can't see the poor quality of your edits, but I can dissect them further on the article's talk page if you would like. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − Yes do that. Every one you have issue with, explain/disprove. Keep the good stuff. You need to spend more time doing research. Here is the thing. You and I disagree. We both need to find someone unrelated to assisting us to give input. And you're the one who has a lot to learn. Your communication and people skills are poor in my opinion. You are passive-aggressive and patronizing. Your attacks about my poor quality only reflect how insecure you are. My edits are good. What I put on that article if fact. You just don't want it there. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − :Stick to the facts, please stop posting unnecessary stuff on this page. You are being overly dramatic. We are discussing. You don't need to post warnings and junk that isn't a problem. Your threats do not scare me. You are the one who violated policy and getting away with it for now, and you created an edit war because you don't like/want the content on the article. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC) − − We BOTH know I did not vandalize. You just went into "defense" and overly attack mode. I didn't just put something false on the page or graphic. You don't need to post stuff on here about "warnings" and "vandalism". You are WAY out of line. We should be discussing, not removing anything or making the other person feel that their good faith edits are "poor". You are very rude! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The point to ALL of this is that the info I put within the article are TRUE. They don't need sources. So remove them and leave the content. It's that simple. You can't deny what is already proven. If [he] doubts Gibson has that many hit records, he needs to do his own research to find the truth. Not revert EVERYTHING else that is good. He is wrong and doesn't want to be told that. He didn't come up with it and it "feels" he is doing this intentionally as [he] has a history of monopolizing article content. (Also, it's odd how the "other editor" has become silent now ...and even though no one else has assisted yet... it leaves me to believe there is an agenda to include only info ONE person wants.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Walter, list all references you feel do not meet Wiki guidlines although many are used in related articles, and I will get better ones or just remove them all together as there are multiple ones that do not need to even be within the article. The statements I made link to their articles already. If you do not list them, I will not undo your revert, but I will in good faith replace it all with the references missing since they don't even need to be there. IF your only complaint is Gibson then I will provide the Billboard cite off his page. If that is the case, you shouldn't have undid everything. That's your bad. You are making more work than there needs to be. I must not be as bored, since I don't appreciate doing all this unproductive work (waste of time). Bye for now! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

this was moved from the talk page of 99.129.112.89. The warnings here were not made to the article. Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Contemporary Christian music, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Contemporary Christian music. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_Christian_music&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_Christian_music&diff=534126668&oldid=534126240
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NUT 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement not sourced

Pioneers of this movement also included 2nd Chapter of Acts, Andraé Crouch and the Disciples, Evie, Nancy Honeytree, The Imperials, Love Song, Barry McGuire, and Petra. The small Jesus music culture had expanded into a multi-million-dollar industry by the 1980s. Many CCM artists such as Amy Grant, DC Talk, Michael W. Smith, Stryper, and Jars of Clay found crossover success with Top 40 mainstream radio play. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Artists in intro also not sourced. It may be logical but if my entries that were sourced and have "proof" within their article is not accepted, these too should have reliable sources. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want sources, I have five books that reference the material you complain about in the first section comment, although Petra really didn't become influential until 1981's "The Coloring Song". The crossover artists are valid as they received airplay for the same songs in both mainstream and CCM radio, but you're right, there is no reference for that. The artists in the intro were selected by their dominance of modern Dove awards, which was the consensus that was reached above. Feel free to tag whatever you want. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Diversity within CCM added

The obvious shouldn't need sources when it's already stated within the articles that I linked topics to/from. I'm willing to remove more sources if they aren't allowed, but here are some of the references I had used and removed (created a new section and added some new sources):

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. /artist/gaither-vocal-band/11905293/
  6. [8]
  7. [9]
  8. [10]
  9. [11]
  10. [12]
  11. [13]
  12. [14]
  13. [15]
  14. [16]
  15. [17]
  16. [18]
  17. [19]

99.129.112.89 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding by number:
  1. A list of albums that a reader is required to infer what the point is. If you were stating that they have been releasing albums since 1962, this might be a good reference. Since you were trying to reference the fact that they were a precursor to CCM, one of several "early acts", it doesn't succeed. Second point, who is "Dave Maurer", the person who has copyrighted that page? Third, what is the policy for submission for that site (there is a submission button on the top)? It could be an open wiki. I'm not stating that the Happy Goodmans are not a Christian music group, but that page in no way supports that they are a precursor to CCM. What would be needed is a statement by an editor of CCM magazine, Harvest Rock Syndicate, Cornerstone magazine, or any one of the other reliable sources on Christian music stating that they were a an early CCM group. A list of albums is not sufficient to prove the point being made.
  2. Empty page. What are you trying to show by it?
  3. Lists songs from some unknown album, but has some of the same problems as the first link: a list of albums does not indicate that they were an early act associated with CCM. They are certainly a long-running band, but in no way does it support the statement being made.
  4. Who is the creator of the essay on http://www.christianmusic.com? Also, most can draw from this is that they won Dove awards in the early 1970s, well before the term CCM was coined and before the musicians were invited to join the Gospel Music Awards. It does not support that they were part of the lineage of CCM. This entire section might be better suited to a section at the Christian music article than it is here.
  5. Another blank page. Do I need to have an account on eMusic? What would a list of songs or albums be supporting?
  6. Again, this might be a reasonable source, but who is "R.E. Norton"? Why can I "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites"? Is this just an open website? Also, supporting a statement that Gibson was getting "considerable" airplay isn't supported there. He doesn't mention the artist. He did get some airply, but was it "considerable"? I don't recall that as being the case and the source doesn't support it.
  7. No denying that Cash sang Gospel music, but listing an album of his doesn't support that "Contemporary Christian music became mainstream" with him. First, you're equating CCM, a term coined in the mid-seventies with Gospel music again. They were different streams of music. Second, there's no support that it made Gospel music more mainstream than it was before. There is too much left to the reader's interpretation. I know that Cash was a top-selling artist at the time, but how much airplay did his Gospel songs get? Were they selling better than Elvis' Gospel music a decade before that? Did they sell more than Gospel music in the 40s, the 30s, or earlier? There's no question that Gospel music was already popular, so there's no support of the statement, which is what is needed.
  8. Appears to be the same album as the previous item.
  9. Again, an iTunes listing of Cash's music says nothing to support anything.
  10. Again, the todayschristianmusic.com listing of Cash's music says nothing to support anything.
  11. A listing of Stevie Wonder's writing credits on the albums of others says nothing to support anything.
  12. A list of P.O.D. photos is supposed to support what exactly?
  13. Steve Green list of nothing supports what?
  14. Pat Boone songs supports what when the album was released in 2004? Boone did start Lamb & Lion Records that released several CCM albums, but he himself never performed CCM nor did his music shape or found CCM. You are equating Gospel music again with CCM.
  15. The CCM-TV Carman Concert Special: Raising the Standard Live does not support that Carman received "considerable airplay". He did get some airplay, but he was also very controversial and some stations didn't play his singles at all.
  16. Carman's Allmuisc bio is a reliable source! It even partially supports the statement it's a reference to: "he issued a series of LPs which gradually launched him to the top of CCM playlists"!
  17. Again, a list of P.O.D. is designed to support what statement?
Most importantly, Wikipedia:Citing sources shows you how to cite sources, particularly at WP:INCITE. I was getting ready to convert them to proper references when I noticed that they were mostly terrible references and decided, as other editors have done, that the material isn't salvageable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Bored. I'm not even reading any of this and I mean I have not read any more of your replies. You are not focused or paying attention to what I'm even trying to communicate. I just scrolled down to type that/this. I could care less about any of this now, I have better things to do. I have a life. Moving on. It won't matter what you have to say or whatever, this is petty to me and I won't stoop to your level to read/reply or participate in it. It's really no big deal to me. I feel bad for you that it's so "important" to have your way. I know one thing: AVOID YOU aka Walter Gorlitz. You have been the only "trouble maker" over the years and I see you are this way with many other editors as well. Yet Wiki still enables your poor behavior, and for that, I am not even concerned with editing for Wiki at the moment. I'm a professional. I have dignity and respect for myself. Your opinions and incorrect info is not worth debating. You are wrong about nitpicking and not sourcing other info within the article too. You also have a "double-standard" about yourself that is creepy. But hey, have it your way. Hope that makes you feel better about yourself. PEACE "christian"! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not about having it my way. It's about having the way Wikipedia expects. The references were not acceptable and that's what several editors have told you. I'm sorry that you've made this personal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Be consistent!

Another problem I found after my edits were removed was the "Controversy" section. Is this really a reliable source? Seems like typical manipulation and hypocrisy, which is not allowed on Wikipedia... especially within Christian article you'd think! (sigh) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

http://christianmusic.about.com/od/trivia/a/ccmhistory.htm

Yes. About.com is known as a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Statement requires removal: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive13#ABOUT.COM (this source also includes Kirk Franklin and Carman which you removed because it was my entry/input and not yours.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC) FYI: you didn't read everything nor understand it correctly. The sites provided didn't just show albums or books. I responded to the reasons above which you didn't see I guess. God forbid you scroll or click "Bio". Regardless, the cites aren't required. They are facts that are already included within an article. You just want to control certain articles. Plain and simple. Bye! P.S. Your books don't count either. I mean, really? Hello!?! Is anyone really seeing this? Just admit you want the article your way. Actually, don't. I know the truth. Remove the bad entries without proper sources. You said it yourself, dude. I just returned to this page to school you. I was advised to mention this here. I am not reading your replies or tolerating your attitude. Practice what you preach. You are not consistent. Again, I am right. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You selected one entry out of the eight in the archives? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Posted to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Kim Jones at About.com on Christian music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of some artists and not others

I would like to know why hillsong live, hillsong united, Matt Redman, or Worship central aren't on the list when people like rebecca st james are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevlauk (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you mean the list near the beginning of the article. I'm not sure why those few artists are singled-out while others are not, but the excluded artists are primarily worship musicians while St. James is primarily a CCM artist who has performed worship music. Also, it had to do with recognition by the GMAs under the contemporary sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Diversity

While early singers such as Happy Goodman Family,[20][21][22] The Oak Ridge Boys, The Blackwood Brothers and Bill Gaither's Gaither Trio (including composing hymns) were generally considered Southern Gospel music, they would influence future artists contributing to the contemporary Christian music genre, among many others.[23]

  • (taken from articles and cites but if not "valid" sources then use a different one, {cite} it or discuss removing that portion only, not all of it.)

Some other musicians who made a significant impact in CCM (including on Christian radio) were/are Jon Gibson, Bebe & Cece Winans,[24] David and the Giants,[25] Rich Mullins,[26] Carman, David Meece,[27] DeGarmo and Key,[28][29] Randy Stonehill,[30][31] Keith Green,[32] Kirk Franklin,[33] and Steve Green, in addition to others.

  • (these are discussed on the websites and within the articles about the article. i went in great detail about these in above sections. Walter has even used sources with these artists mentioned. the website address for kirk franklin even reads: kf named best rb artist ccm magazine! It's not necessary to list their contributions to CCM when it's on their article. Walter does not do this for pre-existing singers on the article. Ugh!)

Contemporary Christian music also became popular with secular musicians as well, including Stevie Wonder, Johnny Cash, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston and M.C. Hammer (who vowed to God he would include at least one song of praise on each album).[34] Bands like P.O.D. and Creed contained Christian themes within their lyrics yet still appealed to a secular audience.[35] Contemporary rock & roll and pop music artists such as Dion (winning a GMA Dove Award and nominated for a Grammy Award in 1984)[36], B.J. Thomas (releasing a platinum Christian album)[37] and Pat Boone (being inducted into the Gospel Music Hall of Fame),[38] have also recorded contemporary Christian music albums during their careers.[39]

  • (the article already includes creed and pod and the others are factual based on the articles that already exist about the articles. sorry if i didn't list who he likes or wanted to see on the article.)

Christian Songs (a Billboard chart) ranks the most popular contemporary Christian songs, calculated by overall audience impression CCM stations. As contemporary Christian music has become more diverse, the genre has additionally expanded to dance, electronic, techno, worship, rock, bluegrass, country, blues, celtic, progressive and urban gospel music. Christian CHR is a radio format playing current/recent hip hop, rock and pop music as determined by Christian Top 40.

  • (this is taken word-for-word from the christian song, genre and christian chr articles. how can it be removed?)

Various forms of contemporary Christian music has also impacted film and television, such as The Gospel, The Second Chance, GMC TV, Gospel Music Network, GMA Dove Awards, Grammy Award for Best Gospel/Contemporary Christian Music Performance, The Apostle, Left Behind: The Movie and Kingdom Come.

  • (these are factual and even link to the soundtrack sections of ccm articles. no reason to remove it. even if he has a beef with something specific, not all of my entries should be reverted. and i should not be called names or given a final warning on the first and only time of replacing the content per another adminstrator's instruction a month ago on my talk page. he caused revert/edit wars and isn't following policies with dispute resolution. he needs to be warned/blocked i think since this is a repeat offense by him.)

99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If someone took the time to actually look at the history of this dispute and see what Walter has intentionally done wrong towards me and my contributions, and look at all the related articles I linked to within Wikipedia that support my claims about how these artists relate to CCM-style music, then this would all be a trivial dispute. He is focused on cites (when there are so many poor ones already on these christian music-related articles) and using "original research" as a reason to remove it when it is not the case. To mass revert everything though, is out-of-line. I am expanding the article. I had to challenge him on his "About.com" source that he finally moved after a long wait and several editors stating it was not acceptable. Why does he not get warned/blocked? There are still problems with the article and I was trying to improve it. Not leaving quotes and useless details that can be found on the singer's article. Not liking the credible sources is not cause to delete it all and state it's "useless" or that i'm a "terrible editor". No one has ever removed all my other content like this, only what I put on articles he "watches". Walter does not own them. I need someone else to resolve this and a concensus made that excludes him, not just his manipulation of the content that is or isn't included. I also do not want others taking his side and lying about stuff I didn't do like before to make them look right (smoke screens). I will not let this rest as I will not be treated so poorly by someone who is not taking the proper steps to resolve conflicts. How can something I took from other Wikipedia articles be removed? It's factual. Walter has violated Wikipedia policy and got away with it (note to self). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

About.com paragraph and "Diversity in CCM" section

The About.com content and other challenged statements mentioned above need to be removed or sourced properly. I also was given permission to replace my reverted entry with the legit sources (although not required since it's already contained in the respective articles about the individual singers) as it helped expand the article regarding diverse artists in CCM. It is not a contradiction to the article, unlike the issues with About.com and other unsourced statements mentioned above are. I can compare my statements with those on the singer's respective articles and/or the website sources I provided to verify they are acceptable. Anyways, if I do this, am I going to get hassle again? Someone else let me know, thanks! :)

P.S. For future reference, please don't be so quick to revert something without going through the proper dispute/discussion process first (and give the benefit of the doubt to all users). Getting our way shouldn't be the motive. And it should go without typing, but as with the last two entries I made, please do not remove this without discussing it with me on my talk page or here first (with all due respect). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed info by Future Perfect at Sunrise during an open discussion/dispute about my reverted edits and the unsourced statements pre-existing that need to be cited or removed: [40] and [41] 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The About.com has been removed and cite templates added for un-sourced statements. Here is the breakdown of my edit that was reverted that I was told could be replaced due to no legitimate consensus dispute (keep in mind when I added this much info or sites the first time that I may have made a mistake with what got copied in the actual entry, hence some disagreements):
Diversity within CCM: (prior entry/edit) [42]
Happy Goodman Family,[47][48][49] (NY Times, MTV and the group's website.)
In the first sentence of NY Times: "a matriarch of gospel music whose influence ranged far beyond its traditional audience". The list of artists who are similar and influenced by the Happy Goodman family are on MTV's site (and doesn't even need to be included as it was just a "verification" source), among other statements to support what I typed are on the group's site: "Their influence is still felt in many singing groups of today." Lastly, the info is covered on the singer's Wikipedia article. This is just one example of many I picked to "open" the statement about CCM's history or later changed to CCM's diversity.
First off, the info to support these statements are already explained within the artist's articles that they are linked to. Jon Gibson is "overly" sourced on his article, I made sure of that as a user with a different user name/ip/id in the past. Secondly, iTunes/TCM/GMA/CBN/CCM and the radio sites as well as the artist's actual websites are valid sources. I removed all sources Walter said only had "books" and "albums" listed, although if [you] scroll down or look for a different tab to see the "bio" or "description" sections, it would confirm what my entry claimed. The above 17'ish sources listed in another section were ones I removed and I did not need to be advised what was wrong with them, they are only being "saved" for future reference. Third off, this article didn't give any diversity which was an element I wanted the genre to reflect. Within the About.com that was recently removed and within the actual article of the artists (ie. Randy Stonehill), this statement can be verified. It gives a better idea of the veteran and popular CCM artists that the article didn't mention, those who are significant and some award winning "record breakers" (if nothing else just diversity in race/nationality such as Carman and Kirk Franklin which I provided reliable sources for).
"Word press", "CCM Top 500 albums" and Kirk Franklin honored by CCM on his website are all valid points made on the credible sources I provided.
This section is correct as Walter even agreed to it per prior remarks. It also can not be disputed and gives a good example of crossover secular artists from past to present (Thomas and Dion to P.O.D. and Hammer). It shows how contemporary christian music also "sounded/s" like secular music with christian lyrics, but with non-Christian record label pop artists such as Houston and Wonder, which the article misses this important point. Itunes is valid AND the info is explained in great detail on most of the artist's articles (ie. Hammer and songs/albums by Mariah and Whitney, etc.), as well. The sources not approved were just to show "verification" to the songs/albums that exist in the CCM genre. I never intended them to all be used, only having those not valid removed after "confirmation". Nontheless, the artists, sources and bio info are all correct.
Even if all sources aren't valid, there were at least one good for each topic and I linked the topics/singers to their respective and already reliable articles. If knowing this is true, finding a legit source wouldn't be hard to find. But reverting it all more than once was unproductive, incorrect and unnecessary. I don't mind having others added if these overall points are made, which was simply overlooked within the article and which I think helps expands and give a better understanding to the "controversy" section about how traditional christian music and hymns have evolved to "secular" sounding music not only by way of CCM artists, but non-christian label pop singers/entertainers as well.
I hope this better "explains" why I posted what I did and will replace with the support of an editor who assisted me today on my talk page. I will also reply on the noticeboard that this will be replaced and kept once I get a confirmation that the sources are in fact legit and support the "big picture". For those sources that aren't needed, simply remove. If any doubt, resort back to the artist's articles, sites and reliable sources provided. If any questions, please let me know before undoing work that is a respectful attempt to improve/enhance the subject and "tie it all together" full circle.
Sincerely thanks... P.S. I was really excited about sharing this info that is mainly "obscure" or overlooked, yet is very effective in explaining the past and present genre of CCM. Especially since I was connecting the topic to artists such as the Gaithers, Dion and Boone (having a lot of knowledge about as with Meece, Stonehill, Franklin, Winans, Hammer and Gibson, among others). But when it was quickly dismissed without proper steps taken, it discouraged me and made me a bit upset. But by no means was I a "terrible editor" or was it completely "poorly sourced" as I was accused. (I am not using the word attacked, as I did not take it very personal, except that I was offended by the fact I knew it was good stuff and worthy of the article.) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Walter for updating better sources on the article. I find it interesting that while my edits were reverted and all this hassle happened, there are similar artists mentioned in the new cites he provided as well that confirms my addition to christian and secular singers with my contributions which is why I fought for this addition so much (I had not seen these sites until now):

[66] (P.O.D., BJ Thomas and Rich Mullins mentioned within this source recently provided by Walter user as well as my edit that was reverted at least twice)

[67] (Kirk Franklin, Keith Green, Randy Stonehill and Creed mentioned within this source recently provided by Walter user that was reverted at least twice)

(Perhaps adding info about CCM in movies and soundtracks as well as record labels or distribution companies such as BMG, etc. would be something to consider later, because I noticed info mentioned within the recent cites added that gave me the idea. For instance, I'm thinking about the MWS movie or "gospel-related films" and such with soundtracks. Even pop artists have had CCM within FILM. It is not important to the article right now, though. Just a thought...) 99.129.112.89 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


[68] Prior "good faith" contributions and reverts for quick reference and/or consideration with exception of the poor sources (includes more wording and examples of CCM success and sources such as Yahoo music, etc.)
[69] [70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85] [86] 99.129.112.89 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent restoring of this poorly referenced material

Removed, restored, I tried to edit it and then I just had to remove it. I tried to salvage some of the WP:OR, but none of it was supported with references. For instance "they would influence future artists contributing to the contemporary Christian music genre, among many others.[87]" but nothing at the Oak Ridge Boys entry at "todayschristianmusic.com" supports that statement. None of the biographys you supplied in the next paragraph supports that "Some other musicians who made a significant impact in CCM". Adding bios doesn't support the next statement on crossover artists, like this "reference": Rap Artist MC Hammer Returns to Faith in God, but it does support that MC Hammer returned to his faith, but not as a result of music. The last two paragraphs are completely unreferenced.

In short, It's all lovely prose, that isn't even true (Southern Gospel for the most part tried to drive Jesus music and CCM out of the Bible book stores in which they were sold, and they publicly attacked the musicians, sometimes physically as in the case of Randy Matthews) and to simply list the artists and suggest that they somehow influenced the music just be existing is not reasonable.

While those musicians you list in the second paragraph were on the radio, not all strongly influenced the direction of the genre. There were others, such as Evie, Andrae Crouch, Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, Dion DiMucci, David Meece, Don Fransico and others who charted well in the late 70s and early 80s taht are not even mentioned. You need to reference them, in a more neutral fashion, possibly just by listing those who had multiple No. 1 singles and on which formats. While Jon Gibson, Rich Mullins and some of the others you listed would fall into this category, being vague and selective isn't good for an encyclopedic entry on the subject.

As for cross-over artists, P.O.D. and Creed are certainly that, but they're definitely Christian rock, if not Christian metal, and not CCM. While Stevie Wonder and Johnny Cash were certainly Christians, they did not perform CCM or even Jesus music. At least Cash Chris Christofferson performed for the Billy Graham organization at Explo '72 alongside Jesus music artists Larry Norman, Randy Matthews, Love Song along with Andrae Crouch and the Disiples and more traditional gospel musicians. Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston have performed gospel music, not CCM. While yes, M.C. Hammer made a vow, those songs were not crossover hits and never played on CCM radio, but they may have played on positive pop stations. No chart history for them is available nor was it provided. That sentence could possibly be salvaged. And Dion's Christian music wasn't ever played on mainstream radio any more than his do-wop music was played on Christian radio. The fact that B.J. Thomas' first album sold so well, should certainly be mentioned, but http://www.christianmusicarchive.com/artist/bj-thomas#bio doesn't support that it sold well at all as it's taken from Wikipedia (see below as it points to [88]). I'm sure a reference can be found. I suspect that all of christianmusicarchive.com relies on Wikipedia in that way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that this dispute is still going on. The IP user contacted me on my talk page with a very long complaint. I am requesting for comment. I will contact both of you on your talk pages. Thank you — nerdfighter(academy) 01:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say other than what I put on your talk page: I do not want contact from/with Walter. He is intentionally causing problems. My complaint now was his "final warning" he put on my talk page after I waited a whole month of not making edits and letting my above input be disputed or revised and no one did anything. This was done per Nerdfighters advice on my talk page a month ago. Then within a half hour Walter removes it all (back-and-forth three times) with poor reasons and leaves a warning on my talk page after attacking me, calling me a "terrible editor" and stating "thought you were leaving". This type of bullying is unacceptable and he shouldn't be warning during a dispute when I have done nothing wrong. I put a constructive contribution. I am thinking I will just create another page about the diversity in CCM. He is monopolizing the article. There are so many problems with these types of articles that he's involved with, yet he nitpicks what he doesn't like about mine even though most is already word-for-word from related articles and he agrees to much of it. If he doesn't like the source, he can put a {cite needed} template or others give input of what is wrong with it. But we have a conflict of interest and he needs to leave me alone. He also should be warned and blocked for his attitude, attacks and poorly executed Wikipedia guidelins in my opinion. Enabling this type of behavior is what causes good faith editors (IP or "newbies") to get so angry. That's just my personal opinion. I want him to leave me alone. I want others who can treat me with dignity and respect and are professional to resolve this, not just revert it, call me names and put warnings/blocks on my page to cloud the judgment of others. He also had others take his side and made up lies about things I "typed" that never happened. Why is it okay to let this happen but I am warned and blocked? Please don't assume anything about me, understand Walter is causing this to get out-of-hand. P.S. I did not want to repeat what is linked to other articles within this article. He wants me to give examples, but someone can click on their article to find out the impact they had on CCM. He also lists random bands that aren't sourced or explained in detail. He is not practicing what he's preaching. It takes so long to type everything out to prove my point. It's very frustrating. I never had anyone remove my content, it is only him over the year. I followed all the appropriate steps, yet he is not and I'm the one warned/blocked. Not fair. Thank you! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you've reduced your complaint to me tagging you with a final warning. I trust that my explanation above as to why your addition of the same, unimproved content wasn't really acceptable either at the level of references or content.
The reason I went to final is simple: you have received multiple warnings for your edits and behaviour and could have been blocked for your unwillingness to behave.
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.129.112.89&diff=534126676&oldid=534126432
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.129.112.89&diff=534128467&oldid=534128310
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.129.112.89&diff=534291993&oldid=534284550
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.129.112.89&diff=534930131&oldid=534929745
  5. The final warning was indeed that: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.129.112.89&diff=540204497&oldid=535559938 It's not a threat, it's just a warning.
You have also had the opportunity to tag whatever material you feel is inappropriate in the article. When you did so last time, I fixed some material and removed other material.
You did not follow any appropriate steps when you restored your rejected edits. I have explained why they were rejected before and most recently, I explained them in detail. If you would like, I can respond to each individual word and entry. Since you refuse to discuss with me, I'm sure I'm wasting my time, but I'll make the offer. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Below is the edit removed. My issue now is that he attacked me in summary edit notes twice and he put a final warning on my page after not even editing for over a month. I followed guidelines. He is not. He started all the problems and me falsely being warned/blocked/attacked (plus lies made up about what I did and didn't do). This is not appropriate behavior and I think he is the one who needs to be "punished". Why is he getting away with this? I explained in great detail why my edit is valid, but at this point, it's about him not getting his way and treating me inappropriately while not taking the proper steps. This is all a misunderstanding, and I know once it was explained and understood with unbiased thinking, [you] would see that all these reverts, edit wars, warnings and a block were not justified. But I can't even get "heard" before he warns and blocks me so that is why I seek help... Why was he silent for a whole month??? Why did he revert it all before checking facts and then left it and then changed it back to revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.112.89 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Your removed it is also dissected again above. If you would like, I can respond to each individual word and entry.
I'm not attacking you in your summary edit notes.
Also, final warning explained above (after an edit conflict).
You didn't follow any guidelines by placing the same edit back in after it was rejected and it was explained why it was rejected.
I am following all policies and guidelines. You started the problems by adding the terrible, unreferenced original research masquerading as content. I helped by removing it.
I am not getting away with anything, I am editing Wikipedia correctly.
Your addition is terrible and the reasons why have been explained several times, but most notably when the links don't support the statements they're referencing, but they do give references taken from Wikipedia and pasted into other sites.
I was silent for a whole month to your material below because you told me to not respond wrote that you are not reading my replies. I was not silent on the article for a month as I did respond to another request below.
The reason I reverted it all was because it was the same copy as the last revert, without improvement and without change. I then thought that there could be something that could be redeemed, but that wasn't the case. After having on one sentence left from the original two paragraphs, I decided the best thing to do would be to delete the whole addition.
It currently seems that your sole goal is some sort of punitive action toward me. If that's the case, feel free to explain what you'd like to see happen and why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - This article needs improvement, but this is not it. There really isn't even a reason for this dispute at this point given the low quality of added citations. Toa Nidhiki05 02:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Basically it's ok for only Walter to give input, to "final warn" when another administrator told me to replace if there is not a concensus, to be called names by Walter, to be treated with disrespect, allowed to lie and remove what he doesn't like, not to {cite required} unless it's what he wants on the article and to allow a completely poor article remain the way it is while he reverts other people's edits even when they are word-for-word from related articles. Good to know. I am adding the content on an article that is not this one even if I create it myself via another account. And as a matter of principle, I will continue to save this to defend myself against Walter who is the only trouble maker I've encountered on Wikipedia. He has a poor attitude. Others could have assisted the past month but refused not to. The content is okay and Walter is wrong for calling me names ("terrible editor") and "final warning" something that was never warned and was already posted on this page as something I would be replacing if there was no dispute. Now all the sudden he wants to insert himself. And everyone is ignoring how he is not properly handling disputes and gets to do what he wants and not be warned or blocked. Good to know. I will not rest on this. I just have to do it a different way without this IP address. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
If you mean this edit, nerdfighter isn't an admin, and the advice was bad. The material did have a consensus to exclude. Please look at the comments of all editors on this page.
I don't have a poor attitude, I have a responsibility to keep Wikipedia in a good state.
Calling you a terrible editor isn't calling you a name, it's stating an opinion based on the evidence at hand.
The final warning was merited based on your behaviour and four prior actions that merited warnings as well.
I suggest you give it a rest now. Your edits will be obvious even if you get an account. I've been involved with that sort of activity in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Sources" [1]

‎Fladrif, I haven't been here for awhile since I've been working on other projects/articles, but I'm glad someone finally removed some more bad sources from this article before I could (as with "About.com" I fought to remove per an archived noticeboard dispute). Talk about "terrible editors" per comments made by WG:

  • (cur | prev) 06:34, 25 February 2013‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,395 bytes) (-4,357)‎ . . (Undid revision 540203491 by Walter Görlitz (talk) After removing the bad references there was nothing left. Removing every last one since not a single statement can be supported) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 06:29, 25 February 2013‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,752 bytes) (+4,357)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Walter Görlitz (talk): Self revert. I'm tired of fighting this terrible editor. (TW)) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 06:28, 25 February 2013‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,395 bytes) (-4,357)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 99.129.112.89 (talk): There is no consensus to add this WP:OR the sources are still terrible. You said you were leaving. (TW)) (undo)

It's not about having it my way. It's about having the way Wikipedia expects. The references were not acceptable and that's what several editors have told you. I'm sorry that you've made this personal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013


I also realize you're currently blocked per your talk page for what editors were actually doing to me a couple of months ago, including personal attacks, which I want to make a record of before I disappear from this article again. There were issues with excessive reverting, edit warring, content dispute, dispute resolution and conflict of interest as well (without proper steps taken to warn users about not following policy and the proper blocking policy). My input was also misconstrued and assumed. Nonetheless, I have made some more corrections to the article that should not be challenged per overly quoting.

To whom it may concern: Perhaps the "quote tag" could be removed from the top of this article now, although there are mostly quotes in the "Controversy" section. My interest to add/expand a "Diversity" section (with clear proof that CCM is used in films, etc.) could have been amended/reworded/resourced instead of completely removed &/or criticized. In my opinion, the harassment endured with this article, is why I have no longer contributed to it (with exception of clear violations such as those I fixed today).

Thank you, best wishes and bye!

FYI additionally, Toa Nidhiki05/others: Wikipedia:OWN

P.S. Editors, keep this in mind before removing/replacing information from user's talk pages and article talk pages as done in the past (incorrectly by about four of you): regarding comments/content Doing this is unproductive and disruptive. Everyone has a right to voice their concern and express/defend themselves.

99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please realize that other editors have removed this material as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Can't stress this enough, yet again the proper steps are not being taken to handle disputes properly. Just removing good faith reliable content is not appropriate. It requires discussion, resolution and consensus. The recent addition by an IP user is close to what I have provided in the past I noticed. There is not only truth, but reliability to it, and to undo it is a violation as well as disruptive. Please keep in mind no one "owns" an article... Additionally, proper grammer and punctuation should be followed. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 04:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit that I reverted because it was unreferenced. The content is fine and mostly accurate. The problem with this article is that there is already a lot of unreferenced material. We can't continue that. If we could get some referenced material to support some of the statements made we should definitely add them back.
Also, I take offence at editors who claim that I show ownership of this or any article. I show stewardship of all Wikipedia articles I have on my watchlist. If editors want a crap pile, find a different wiki to ruin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
How can we resolve this dispute? I feel that the information that I posted is accurate and belongs in the article. Walter Gorlitz went so far as to report me for disruptive editting because he did not agree with it. He also deleted "Christian" as a genre on Katy Perry's page. I cannot add it back because it is semi-protected. I tried to create an account in order to edit that page, but I need 10 edits under that account to make that edit. I do not have 10 edits that I want to make, just that one. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no dispute. Provide references.
I made no report, I warned you on your page because you were editing disruptively and were in an edit war with me and another editor.
I removed the genre for Katy Perry's article because she does not make Christian music. The documentation for the genre explains that the genres in the infobox should reflect what the artist or band is known for. She is not known for this genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Katy Perry / Hudson should somehow be mentioned

From viewing the history, it seems that at least twice in the past, Katy Perry was mentioned. The reasons for deleting her, to be honest, do not make sense..

"Undid revision 580914696 by 24.142.61.58 (talk) Katy Perry has not dealt with Christian themes in her music": I am a big fan of Katy Perry, and she most definitely does deal with Christian themes in her music. Her most recent album, "Prism", includes the song "By the Grace of God", which definitely deals with Christian themes, and is classified on Wikipedia as Christian pop. The song "Unconditionally" is not explicitly Christian, but does deal with Christian themes, and there are definitely sources referencing that. Other songs, such as "Spiritual", and "Legendary Lovers" can also be interpreted as religious songs, and there are sources for those two. Some even think "Walking on Air" is Christian influenced, but I'm not sure about that one. Her previous album, "Teenage Dream", includes the song "Who Am I Living For", which definitely deals with Christian themes. I'm not as familiar with her first secular album, "One of the Boys", but I do suspect that some songs have Christian themes. I can even make an argument that the song "Teenage Dream" deals with Christian themes, but I doubt it could be sourced.

"Reverted 1 edit by 24.142.61.58 (talk): Katy Perry was never involved in CCM, Katy Hudson was, but she was never important": Katy Hudson and Katy Perry are the same person! Her real name is Katy Hudson, but she uses her mother's maiden name, Perry, to avoid confusion with actress Kate Hudson. So it makes no sense to say one is/was involved with CCM and the other is not, since they are the same person. I also disagree that "she was never important". Although at the time, that album may not have seemed that important, it was the first step for who is now one of the biggest artists of her generation. Also, that album now sells for several hundred dollars.

Anyway, I think Katy Perry should somehow be mentioned, since she is currently the best known artist who had CCM roots. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Katy Hudson was not a major figure so why would we? She had no charting singles. Her album sold poorly. The only marginally important part that she played was dating a member of a band with whom she later wrote some songs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I still think she should be mentioned, since she does still incorporate Christian themes into her songs. The only reason her Christian album sold poorly was because the record label went bankrupt shortly after it was released. From a historical point of view, it is important, in retrospect. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
But it's not notable and wasn't referenced and so I will be removing it again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Katy Perry does not warrant any mention here. Her album sold nothing and spawned no charting singles, and her legacy in the industry is nothing aside from a historical footnote given her pop career. It and her short-lived career are just not significant in relation to the genre and industry. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Katy Hudson (the album) may not have been significant, but her later albums are significant, and they do include Christian themes. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
What I read is that they're "spiritual" in nature and may have Christian imagery, but so do a lot of musicians. When the singer comes out and states that she is not a Christian, it's hard to argue against that. And even if it could be twisted that she has blatant Christian themes, we have no sources to support that the music she's making CCM like we have for The Byrds, Van Morrison, Elvis Presley, Creed, Lifehouse and U2. And then there's Dylan who released blatantly Christian albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You just admitted that you have never listened to either of Katy Perry's albums that I am referring to, so you shouldn't be deleting comments by her. Also, taht one interview that you are referring to was in a tabloid magazine (not a reliable source) and was likely a misquote. It claimed that she said she's not a Christian, but that she beleives in Jesus. By definition, if you beleive in Jesus, you are a Christian. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You misinterpreted my statement. WP:OR says that we can't add our own interpretation of information. WP:RS states that we need reliable sources to support any material added. You have broken both. We need a reliable source that she "continues to incorporate Christian themes in her secular music"? Let alone in Prism? If you can find any that support that idea, we can work on correcting the formatting and terminology (I don't know of any current reviewers of Christian music who refer to "secular" music as most refer to it as "mainstream" instead.
And when you reverted the revert that Toa Nidhiki05 made, you appear to have assumed that I made it.
Now to address your questions directly, by definition if you "believe" in Jesus, you're no better than the demons who believe in God and tremble. See James 2:19. No reputable Christian theologian would agree with your definition. If you put your faith in Christ, you're a Christian. And if you're in the Pentecostal tradition, which is what she grew up in, the way you live is the only evidence of your faith, not what you say.
Now, where did you see that I read one interview? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not appreciate the fact that you reported me for disruptive editing, when I posted in good faith, and you just do not agree with my posts. Since I do not want to lose my editting privileges over this, I will not edit this page anymore. And by the way, I agree that Katy Perry is no longer Pentecostal, but she is still a Christian. In any case, it is not our job to judge whether or not she is a Christian; that is God's job. I am giving up on this battle, not because I agree with you, but because I want to avoid any more trouble. 68.193.17.157 (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Belief in Jesus is irrelevant here, I definitely understand how this could be mentioned on her page, but what does it do to improve this page, for the record though, belief in Jesus does not make you a christian as Judaism and Islam both regard Jesus as a prophet [[89]]. The main issue is why should the info on Kate Perry/Hudson be included here if it was not notable to the genre Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, I did not report anon for disruptive editing, I warned you that your editing behaviour was disruptive and the way to achieve consensus is through discussion. However, there are now three editors who not only don't agree that Katy Perry needs a mention in this article, but you still have not supplied a single reference to support that a reliable source thinks that her music has Christian themes. As I said, I think her music has spiritual themes, but so did a number of musicians in the early 70s (Norman Greenbaum, George Harrison, Leon Russell, Jackson Browne and others) and none of them are mentioned.
I agree that it's not our job to judge whether she is or isn't a Christian because that would be original research. And again, I understand that you're not suggesting that she is a Christian but that she writes music with Christian themes, but stating that without a reference is OR as well. The biggest problem here is that if someone else comes along and sees that, that person may think that we are trying to claim a star as our own. It was a battle just to keep U2 and Dylan listed by the way, but I did find references to support that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a new section called: C.C.M.’s Growing Industry

I would like to add a new section to this page to inform that the contemporary Christian music industry is growing. I will briefly talk about how much the album sales have gone up and how record companies like Sparrow Records, and their decisions have affected C.C.M.

Elizabeth Joa (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine. See WP:BOLD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

General Editing and Additional Information onto the page

I would like to edit the page in general and add more information I discovered through the sources I found from databases. I will cite the sources I will use.

Elizabeth Joa (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The information was good, but the lede should be a summary of the material in the article and so I moved it there. If you would like to re-write the lede, that would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dealing With Christian Themes?

I notice theres a small section on "artists who deal with christian themes but are not ccm". Why mention them then? As far as i can see it's an attempt at legitimization by association of a musical genre that broadly speaking is seen as a bit of a joke.. U2 are also deal with themes of war, Creed with sex and drug use, and The Byrds, well they were around in the 60's, what didn't they sing about when they weren't off their faces, do they get a mention in articles on war, pornography and drug use as "artists who deal with x, y and z" in their music? if it isn't relevant there, why would it be here? Slayer include themes dealing with the negative aspects of christianity? can they be included here? they are after all "christian themes". Point I'm making is U2 et all are dealing with their view on aspects of christianity just as slayer are, so why is one more worthy of inclusion than the other? Other than lending credibility to a, frankly, rubbish genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.108.22.198 (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The editor who wrote that bit might have done so in an attempt to "legitimize" the genre, but a lot (maybe all) of those artist have been attached to the Christian scene. For example, Bob Dylan released two Christian albums, there's been a lot of debate surrounding how "Christian" U2 is, and Elvis Presley released several gospel albums. I could go on. My point is, a lot of artists could kinda-sorta be considered "Christian" artists, though they aren't exactly CCM.--¿3family6 contribs 22:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

NO ACTION
Consensus was not to merge--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Christian electronic dance music be merged into Contemporary Christian music. The current article about CEDM does not contain enough meaningful content to create a comprehensive article; rather, the CEDM article can easily be merged to the Style and artists section of the CCM article. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. There does not seem to be enough there for a separate article.--SabreBD (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While there's not much there, it's clearly distinct from mainstream CCM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Walter's statements. CCM (ex. Third Day) has no real resemblance of style as this genre (ex. Capital Kings). Remember, Christian music is not a genre of music and we shouldn't just group them all together when it's an expanding part of music today. There can be more added, but the merge doesn't seem to make sense. Either we add more or delete the page. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 13:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Their is little similarities between the two, where two pages are needed to explain the uniqueness's to the reader.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Listeners of Contemporary Christian music are generally not familiar with or interested in electronic dance music. Radio stations that play Contemporary Christian music do not ever play electronic dance music. Someone who comes here to read about Contemporary Christian music will not appreciate the change of subject.Lfbno7 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contemporary Christian music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contemporary Christian music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requesting subsection "Christian girl group" under "Style and artists"

As Christian girl group now redirects here, I believe that creating a subsection on this page would be a better approach than a mere redirect. The subsection can discuss the genre's history, the Raze scandal that hampered the career of two groups (Aurora and Whisper Loud) and the subsequent limitation of the genre as ZOEgirl, BarlowGirl (though generally a band) and 1 Girl Nation were the most well known artists in that genre. I am open to hearing what fellow Wikipedians think about this. --LABcrabs (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

As was mentioned in the AfD, whatever referenced content is available could be added. That was about one sentence.
I'm not sure what Raze had to do with the Christian girl groups. There is no direct link between the cancellation of a tour and the other bands' dissolution so nothing needs to be mentioned here about it. However, if you can find a reference that says that there is a direct link, it would be better on the two band article pages as well. The discussion of the problem is not important to understanding the genre and should be left out of this general article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lauren Daigle should be mentioned

Lauren Daigle should be mentioned somewhere, since she's probably the most popular recent CCM artist, and her crossover success should be mentioned too. Is there a reason why she's not mentioned? Mitsguy2001 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to update the list. I think we had a discussion a while ago (See Talk:Contemporary_Christian_music/Archive_2#Updated artists). I would suggest that @BrDen: be involved in the discussion of the updated list. It should include artists who regularly chart well, but also not focus entirely on those who chart well in the US. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That link is to an archive page, and it says not to update it. So we should discuss it here instead. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I see she has been added. Thank you. Mitsguy2001 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't state that we should update it, simply that we should see the place where we last discussed it and some of the rationale used in creating the list.
I see that @BrDen: updated the list to include Daigle, but I'm thinking that some artists could be removed. Amy Grant and Michael W. Smith were mentioned in an earlier section. I'm not certain how prominent or representative John Elefante is an longer, but that leaves only Phil Keaggy in that "list", so perhaps we can leave it unchanged or merge it with the "historically" sentence below.
I think that we can leave the "mainstream artists" unchanged.
It's the "other artists representing the genre" that we should review. Are MercyMe, Casting Crowns, Jeremy Camp, Third Day, Matthew West, tobyMac, Chris Tomlin, Brandon Heath, Aaron Shust and Lauren Daigle currently the most recognizable names? Should that list change? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Third Day had their final show so I think they could be removed. Aaron Shust hasn't really charted in a while. Heath has charted but not as successful as he was in the 2000s. Tauren Wells, Hillsong Worship or United, and For King & Country could be added. Just suggestions. BrDen (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Based solely on charting, those are good choices to add.
So now the question is, is charting alone the criteria by which we should be judging inclusion on these lists? Is long-term recognition another criteria we should use? We do not want to be accused of recentism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing sources
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contemporary_Christian_music/Archive_2&oldid=1148571794"