Talk:List of Christian punk bands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What genres should be considered for inclusion

The list of punk rock bands, 0–K and list of punk rock bands, L–Z list the following criteria:

This is a list of notable punk rock bands. The bands listed have played some type of punk music at some point in their career, although they may have also played other styles. Bands who played in a style that influenced early punk rock—such as garage rock and protopunk—but never played punk rock themselves, should not be on this list. Bands who created a new genre that was influenced by (but is not a subgenre of) punk rock—such as alternative rock, grunge, New Wave, and post-punk—but never played punk rock, should not be listed either.

I tend to agree that our list has become too inclusive, listing any genre that has had even marginal influence from punk and some that influenced punk as well. Can we stop including, and remove bands that are alternative rock, grunge, New Wave, and post-punk to be inline with the other list? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But what about metalcore, grindcore, crossover thrash, crunkcore, noise rock, sludge metal post-hardcore, emo, screamo, rapcore, and even some forms of pop-punk, and other fusion styles? The problem is, we are getting into very vague territory. Grunge originally was a punk, metal, and indie alt-rock fusion, and then later lost a lot of the punk and metal sound. So unless a source says that a band is post-grunge or modern grunge, we can't say that they aren't punk without getting into really nebulous territory.--3family6 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

All lists on Wikipedia differ in their methods of organization, depending on which best conveys the subject matter to the reader. Just because the secular punk list organizes itself a certain way doesn't we have to. However, I think that my suggestion below for a list of Christian hardcore bands might help narrow this list down to bands that are purely punk.

P.S. Regarding allmusic on grunge, I refer you to the page in question: ""After Nirvana crossed over into the mainstream, grunge lost many (not all) of its independent and punk connections (not sound) and became the most popular style of hard rock in the '90s." (italics and parentheticals mine)--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

While all lists differ in the methods of organization, this list is too inclusive and overlaps with at least one other list. It is so broad it is meaningless. I keep expecting to see Evie and Amy Grant to be listed here because you found some reviewer somewhere who included some throw-away phrase in a comment that made it seem as though the had some affiliation with some tenth-derivative of punk and so you justify inclusion.

If we follow the rules on the mainstream punk listing and it will avoid duplication with the metal list and it will make a more seamless transition between this list and the other. Presently, the inclusion of any band listed here does not mean it could be listed on that list because of our overly broad definition of punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

But our definition is not overly broad. Alternative rock, and new wave all have strong punk connections, but we already decided not to include those styles because they expanded way beyond punk. Grunge, however, is a direct punk and metal hybrid, and unless we have sources that say otherwise, which may very well be the case, we have to include grunge bands. And we can't pick and choose without sources, because that is WP:OR. I guess one solution would be to just have straight out punk bands on the list, and all ska punk, pop punk, celtic punk, grunge, and any other fusion styles on their own respective lists.--3family6 (talk) 12:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on the definition of the main article, ours is overly broad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The main grunge article? Because I actually think that it's pretty clear in saying that grunge is part hardcore punk. However, as Invisiboy is proposing a separate list for Christian hardcore bands, that would solve the problem, as grunge is a hardcore fusion and grunge bands could be put only on that list.--3family6 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing about grunge. With regards to the main punk list, I'd like to point out that they have far more bands to sort through. There are (I imagine) hundreds of new wave, garage rock etc. artists that are secular, while so far there seem to be only a few such Christian acts. In other words, the mainstream punk list, were it to accept those genres, would have to add hundreds of new entries, whereas we would only need to add two or three. Because of this, I see no reason not to include such genres, as long as they are direct derivatives of punk (or prefigure it, in the case of garage rock) as opposed to what Walter described as "tenth-derivatives".--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

But they don't have any references and that's killing page load time. Might as well match the mainstream genre lists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

They also have the list organized into a table, complete with full-sentence-minimum descriptions of each artists. That probably takes up a lot of page load time, which I imagine is why they split that list up into two pages. In any case, there'll be a lot fewer artists on this list anyway once I've moved the hardcore bands out, so adding the two or three Christian garage rock/new wave bands is probably not going to slow the page load time down much.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian hardcore bands

Since Christian hardcore already has a page, I was thinking a list thereof might be a good way to trim this one down, particularly with regard to metalcore and screamo bands. I'd be happy to start the article myself, but I guess I just wanted the go-ahead from the editors over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiboy42293 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Just make sure that any bands that play additional punk styles beyond hardcore will stay here. But that's good, it should cut down on this list.--3family6 (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

By Hardcore do you mean Hardcore punk, Post Hardcore, or Metalcore? Because people usually use those terms mixed. More often then I could EVER count. DCcomicslover (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

All three. Hardcore is the original style, and metalcore and post-hardcore are derivatives. Emo, screamo, crossover thrash, sludge metal, thrashcore, crunkcore, grindcore, and all of the other "cores" would be included as well.--3family6 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I found a problem with my above statement. Emo is a hardcore punk/indie rock fusion, so it makes sense to put it on a hardcore punk list. But, is we do that, we will end up with bands like Owl City on the list. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve this problem.--3family6 (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that. We might have to kust live with it, but I think I saw a source somewhere that said more recent emo is less hardcore. I'll see if I can dig it up.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

After some research on the genre, I personally think emo is unique enough to deserve its own list. Since I'm too lazy to find refs proving the notability of Christian emo, and since it's technically hardcore fusion, I'm keeping emo bands on my hardcore list until such refs turn up.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentally, while working on the actual emo article itself, I found refs saying that modern emo is no longer hardcore. That might be useful for bands like Owl City.--3family6 (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, but this discussion pertains to the hardcore list rather than this one, so we should make any final decisions on that talk page.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

New list format proposal

There are a few things I've been trying on my draft of the hardcore list which might help on this list.

• First, instead of the small genres, we could just put the source next to the band name as is done on the metal list.
• Second, instead of including every punk genre associated with a band, we could stick with the sources that specifically say "punk", whether punk rock, pop punk, ska punk, or whatever. In cases where the source mentions a punk style that does not have punk in its name, such as garage rock or new wave, we can list the genre as an parenthetical between the bands name and the source, such as
  XYZ (noise rock) (it's not as overpowering when it's only on a few entries).

I think the above two suggestions would make the list more streamlined while still being appropriately informative. Thoughts?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first point I think is a good idea. I'm not sure exactly what you are proposing with your second point, and it looks a bit confusing. Can you clarify?--3family6 (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, in a lot of cases, it seems like we put in sources for every punk style associated with a band. I was proposing that instead we look for sources that specifically use the word "punk" so that there isn't as much controversy over whether this or that genre counts as punk. For example, The 77s can be sourced as garage rock and new wave, both punk styles, but the Cross Rhythms article calling them "post-punk rock" is much stronger for the purposes of this list. The problem with that method is that some bands can only be sourced as a style which is punk but does not have the word punk in it (i.e. garage rock, noise rock, etc.), and this can make it easier for uninformed IPs to claim that "the source doesn't call them punk" and remove them. Therefore, I also proposed adding interlinked parentheticals for such genres (as I demonstrated above with "XYZ") so that readers can access the articles for these genres and discover their connection to punk. I hope this is a bit clearer.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I understand now. But I think that putting in styles like "noise rock" or "crunkcore" and leaving out other punk styles that actually have "punk" in the name is very confusing. It's better just to have refs, and just revert edits that remove a band.

On an unrelated note, after looking at the post-punk article, I'm not sure if post-punk is actually a punk style, surprising as it may seem.--3family6 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. My suggestion was to use references for "noise rock" or "crunkcore" only if there are no sources for punk. For example, use sources for "pop punk" instead of "new wave". As far as post-punk not being punk, I'd like to know more about that, but first let's finish up this discussion.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. I'm not sure where the policy is on this, but somewhere the consensus is listed that editors should keep citations short, and shouldn't have more than a few. So basically, I agree, we only need one to three sources per band, and those that explicitly say "punk" would be preferred. But if there is no source that actually has "punk" in the name, putting the sourced style in parentheses in the list I think is just confusing.--3family6 (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but what do you think we should we do for that instead?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be one ref and as close to punk as possible (fully agree with you on that). You could place additional refs in comment marks: <!-- additional refs -->. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you misread. I agree about getting one ref as close to punk as possible, but my question was what we do with bands whose closest source to punk is something like "new wave" or "noise rock", both of which are punk styles but do not have the actual word "punk" in their names, thus potentially confusing readers.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No. My fault. I misread you. In that case, don't include. If it's not a clear punk sub-genre, then we shouldn't include them. "Alternative", for instance, could include bands and artists from Sam Phillips (Alt Pop) to Buddy Miller (Alt Folk) to Daniel Amos (just plain alternative). It can also include sub-punk genres. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. If it is a clear punk style just without "punk" in the name, such as noise rock or grunge, it should definitely be included, and does not need an explanation. If it is something like alternative or new wave, there has to be a clear connection with punk mentioned in the reference, otherwise it shouldn't be included.--3family6 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I agree, but my question was how we indicate to the average uninformed reader that such styles count as punk, despite not having the word "punk" in their name. My suggestion is to have a link to the article in parenthese next to the band name so readers can see from there the style's connection to punk, but 3family6 indicated that that would be too confusing, so I asked what he suggested doing instead. Neither of you have answered that yet.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should put up a notice or faq on the talk page, like there is on the heavy metal talk.--3family6 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is archived so perhaps a sub-page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A lot of talk pages are archived and yet still have notices and faqs that are not subpages. Just put it at the top of the page so it shows whenever anyone clicks on the talk page from the main article. That would actually be a good solution to my question.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the recent removal of hardcore bands was in anticipation of a list of Christian hardcore bands?--3family6 (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I've got a draft going in my userspace. I wouldn't have removed them otherwise.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

77's

SO now that brings into question the entry for the 77's. They started as a new wave band (two strong albums). Their self-titled release on Island was more rock-oriented. They have subsequently played alternative rock. Their sole claim to being on this list is that they're an "alternative" band. Not sure they should remain. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes your statements a lot stronger if you source your facts. In fact, if you look at their current sourcing on the list, you will notice a Cross Rhythms article by Tony Cummings calling their Ping Pong over the Abyss album "a revelation to those Christians hungry for music that reflected the brash abrasiveness of post-punk rock music." If that's not strong enough, there's alsoMike Rimmer's review of that album elsewhere on Cross Rhythms saying the 77s fit "into an indie jangling new wave slot" (new wave was a more pop-oriented offshoot of punk1), an AllMusic ref also identifying them as new wave ("The 77's combine elements of classic pop and obstinate new wave..."), and another AllMusic review that directly identifies them as garage rock (an early form of punk). I think the combination of all of those is enough to keep them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop taking phrases you like out-of-context. The phrase is "post-punk rock", not post-punk, rock. They were rock back then according to CR. And below, you admit that post-punk isn't punk. Tell me how "indie jangling new wave slot" is punk. Are you telling me that The Bangles are a punk band? Similarly is U2 a punk band? They were key players in the garage rock movement. Stop assuming that just because a genre has been influenced by punk that it makes them punk. The 77's are a prime example of a non-punk band.

How about this opening sentence from their entry in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: "The Seventy Sevens are typically regarded as one of the two or three best Christian rock bands of all time." (emphasis mine). Another later "'The truth is that the Seventy-Sevens might be the best rock and roll band in the world.'" The quote doesn't say punk. The closest the entry comes is stating that "their hip alternative credentials rival those of U2." "The blended everything from new-wave to Zeppelin to The Crampz(sic) to U2 into a musical spasm that worked on every level." Notice that The Cramps were the only punk band listed and probably influenced Roe and the band because they were both from Sacramento. "CCM Magazine ... treated Ping Pong as a new-wave project...comparing the music to The Police and The Steve Miller Band." Another instance of a confused reviewer (just like Cross Rhythms). The Police were new wave, and certainly not punk, and The Steve Miller Band were rock. The odd thing is that Roe is quoted as saying he doesn't consider the album to be a Seventy Sevens album but rather a Scratch Band album. The next album "starts ... in a similar new-wavey style ... but with more mature musical styling and lyrical perspectives". "Moving beyond the new-wave sound for more of the blues-based Stonesy feel'" The next album "The Seventy Sevens was an artistic masterpiece...in rock and roll, period. The group drops all new-wave pretensions and canks out a full disc of Stones-cum-Springsteen classics rock". So essentially we have parts of two albums of nine studio albums and several live albums and EPs that have tracks that might fit into this category, but overall, they're not new wave or garage rock. They're just a rock and blues rock band. So they should be removed from this list because it misrepresents the band's genre. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not impossible for a band to be both punk and rock. In case you didn't know, the full name of the genre is punk rock. Hence, Cummings was simply using the full name of the genre. Unless you can prove that the phrase "post-punk rock" refers to something other than post-punk, it's a valid ref.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And what's more, I haven't at all stated that post-punk isn't punk. 3family6 merely stated that he wasn't sure about it, hence why I am engaging in a discussion with him about it below. Also, your source, from what you quote of it, casts not a single doubt onto the band being punk. If anything, the source strengthens such a characterization, since it repeatedly indicates that the band's music contained new wave, which, as stated above, is a direct descendant of punk. Your source doesn't contradict the sources already on the list, so unless you have a better one, your complaint is invalid.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's drop the patronizing attitude. The band is not punk. You don't know their music. You're using snippets of material from a few reviews of their two earliest albums, one of which the leader of the band disowns. The source says they're a rock band and they're not a punk band. Didn't we cover this before? If the genre is not representative of the band's output they should not be considered as part of the genre. If it was an important phase for a period, they should. Four songs doesn't make them punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. My main reason for keeping the band was because they also released a grunge album, which I felt was strong enough when combined with other references mentioned above. However, since all hardcore and hardcore fusion bands are being removed from the list to go on a separate list, that reference is not so good. So we are left with garage rock and post-punk, and the weaker support of new wave. But like you said, these styles were on the first two albums, which isn't really representative of the band at large. So, while I highly disagree with your logic that since they are called a "rock" and "rock and roll" band they are not punk, as punk is rock, and in its early days was rock n' roll, and I don't understand your statement about how Cross Rhythms was inaccurate again, I agree that there is no one really good source to call the 77's punk.--3family6 (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the grunge ref (hence why I removed it), but I think the others are valid, even if they were on only the first two albums, because that would indicate that at the time of those albums, that was the style of music the band was playing, hence they were a post-punk/garage rock/new wave band at the time of those albums. What's more, with the exception of the post-punk ref and maybe one of the new wave ones, the refs currently on the list refer to the band's general style, especially the one for garage rock. Therefore, unless reliable references can be found that claim the contrary (i.e. that the band was never any of those three styles), I see no point in removing them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Post-Punk

In the above discussion, 3family6 raised the issue of post-punk possibly not being punk. I personally didn't see anything in the article directly supporting that, but then I only gave it a cursory glance-over. Can you please go into more detail on this?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, these are my findings, which personally I found surprising. First off, in the article itself, their are two statements that suggest that post-punk is not actually punk but instead a new style birthed by punk (emphasis in bold):

Statement 1: "Other groups, such as The Clash, remained predominantly punk in nature, yet were inspired by the experimentalism of post-punk..."

Statement 2: "The original post-punk movement ended as the bands associated with the movement turned away from its aesthetics, just as post-punk bands had originally left punk rock behind in favor of new sounds."

In addition to those statements, the following three references in the post-punk article suggest that it is a separate style from punk: [1], [2], [3].

That's what I have so far.--3family6 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that's good enough. First of all, neither of those statements are sourced in the article, so they're automatically invalid as sources. As far as the links, the only one that seems to be specifically denying any connection is the first one. The allmusic ref calls it "a more adventurous and arty form of punk" that only later developed into "alternative pop/rock", and the Fast 'N' Bulbous book review go so far as to say that post-punk "brought punk’s original aspirations to fruition." I might be wrong, but I don't think those sources are sufficient to exclude post-punk from the list.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I didn't see that sentence in allmusic. The line about "punk's original aspirations" doesn't really prove anything one way or the other, as punk originally was a musical ideology as much of a style, so there's no way to know that the writer was referring to the actual musical style of punk. But, as you said, the Wikipedia statements are not cited, though they might be sourced, and only two of the above refs suggest that post-punk is separate from punk, and only one of them is clear in that distinction. So right now, without more information, I you are right about there not being enough to say post-punk isn't punk.--3family6 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing a single album as representative of a band's genre has got to stop

The 77's are just one example. Just added is a single album review of Dakoda Motor Co. While they are pop punk (before it was even a genre). However EoCCM indicates that "The group's sound is hard to categorize". They are compared to Belly, Concrete Blinde, and the "neo-hippie surf pop tone" and "The-Bangles-meet-R.E.M.". In the end the band had three albums and their sound changed over those three years. It would be better to find general sources rather than sources for single albums. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If we were talking about going by one song, I might agree with you. However, with a full album, not only does a band have to record it, they play the songs in concert, they have singles from it played on the radio, etc. For the period of time an album is being released and promoted, that is the sound being associated with the band. I probably should have discussed it here first before acting on it, but I think we should adopt the metal list's standard of "bands who have played [insert genre here] at some point during their careers." In the two examples you cite, the 77s, as explained above, have more than just that ref supporting them, and while the ref I cited for Dakoda Motor Co. is only referring to the album, besides for the point I made a few sentences ago, your comment presents no proof to the contrary. The fact that they played other genres and had other elements to their sound besides pop punk does not keep them from having a pop punk sound.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The only exception might be if a band as a huge roster of albums, and the style in question is only on one album, and the band otherwise has a consistent sound. But is the band has only relatively few albums, or changes styles a lot, than an album is fine.--3family6 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. However I've read references that make genre comments on one song and not the albums. Again, the 77's have a very long history of non-punk-related music that it's inappropriate to list them here. I'm just glad you haven't found some of my other favourite bands who recorded a few punk-influenced tracks but were otherwise not punk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the above 77's discussion, you will see that I agree with you :)--3family6 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This Isn't Punk

This is supposed to be for christian punk bands but most of these bands are pop rock and metal bands. If It doesn't sound punk it isn't punk. True christian punk bands would be like the last hope, our corpse desrtroyed, FBS, Blaster the rocket man, DESIRING DEAD FLESH, calibretto 13, grave robber, false idle......... but the majority of bands on this list are NOT punk AT ALL.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.188.141 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more. Majority of the bands aren't punk. Grab an account and carry-on the conversation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the IP doesn't need an account to carry on the discussion, but I would recommend it. But regarding the post, this list is in transition, and an editor on here is trying to transfer metalcore and hardcore bands onto a "list of Christian hardcore bands." The pop rock bands there is not much we can do about as they are referenced as pop punk, which is considered punk, though I admit a lot of people debate that it should be considered punk. But if you have sources, we might get somewhere.--3family6 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

While you don't need an account to converse on the talk page, having one, as well as using some proper grammar and taking the time to sign your posts helps give the impression that you actually are interested in improving the article as opposed to some creep on the internet who wants his opinion to be the documented one. Assuming you do really want to improve the article (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), while I understand your concerns, I'd like to point out a few things:

• It is possible for a band's sound to include elements of many different genres besides punk, hence why a number of bands may sound like pop rock and metal and still be partially punk.
• You may not be familiar with it, but under Wikipedia policy, editors are not allowed to edit articles based on their own opinions. Otherwise, any idiot on the internet could edit Wikipedia with what they consider the "correct" information. This also applies to music genres; in these cases, we rely on the published opinions of professional music critics who have been analyzing music for years and would thus know better than any of us editors. Therefore, we can't go by whether a band "sounds punk", we have to go by whether they've been called punk in reliable sources.
• We also, at least on this article, only list bands who have been discussed in reliable sources, to avoid listing every garage band with a myspace page.

I hope this clears up your confusion.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that many of the bands are not punk. How is Superchic[k] punk?? --Latinluv (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

They are a punk sub-genre. Which one, I don't know. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The source cited, a Jesus Freak Hideout review of their Rock What You Got album, mentions "the band's signature pop punk". This in addition to numerous other sources on AllMusic, Cross Rhythms, and Christianity Today that also identify them with that genre. The fact that they have some other elements in there (such as R&B and electronica) doesn't negate the punk elements. What other bands on this list do you feel "are not punk"?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature pop punk what? Again, not weighed against the band's corpus. Superchic[k] has much more right to be here than Kutless or the 77's, but the article seem to take a lot snippets of style and makes those bands appear wholly part of the genre. Perhaps it's time to start labelling which sub-genres apply. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the Jonas Brothers from? They are far from any kind of punk. If someone labeled them as pop punk they are dead wrong. No one who knows anything about punk would put the Jonas brothers in this genre. For crying out loud they are a Disney band! (last I checked Disney wasn't doing punk) If you want any credibility get them off this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.127.242 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Very nice references to reliable sources! Pardon the sarcasm, but unless you have sources, claiming that Jonas Brothers aren't pop punk doesn't really hold water, no matter how accurate you might be.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rapcore and emo

These genres have connections to both punk and hardcore, and I would like to get consensus on what goes where and possibly remove some of the more controversial entries from my hardcore list before I move it to the main space.

Rapcore

The lead on the genre's article states, "Rapcore (sometimes referred to as punk rap) is a subgenre of rap rock fusing vocal and sometimes instrumental elements of hip hop with punk rock (sometimes hardcore punk)." (It's supported with literary sources, so I'll have to take their word for it.) My thinking was to keep rapcore bands here unless another source calls them hardcore (as with P.O.D.), but we might as well get consensus.

Emo

We've discussed this a bit before, but while bands labeled "emocore" or some such description clearly belong on the hardcore list, your average modern emo seems to be closer to punk, and I've seen a few sources that directly describe emo as a punk genre (this is the only one I can remember at the moment). Nevertheless, other editors on this list are more familiar with the genre than me, so I'll leave that also up to consensus.

--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to get the emo and hardcore bands off this article

Since Invisiboy42293 has created a new and similarly misinformed list it seems that we can remove those bands from this list. When do we start? And we can remove the 77s too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No need, I already did that a long time ago. Also, please stop whining about the 77s, as you are vastly overruled by reliable sources.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop exhibiting ownership of this article.

And please stop telling me anything about the 77s. You don't know anything about the band yet you assume you do because you take statements out-of-context and assume that you're right. You're not, at least not on this subject. It leads me to doubt that you're ever right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I miss alot when I start College. Walter Dont worry Im about to go through the hardcore list and make sure all is correct. Im obsessed over that kind of music so I know what Im doing. And nice job on the cleanup Invisiboy. DCcomicslover (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Some proper consensus on bands without articles

I think we should get this discussion out of the way in an organized fashion. First, as I've mentioned in other discussions, WP:NOTESAL states that "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." Based on this, I would guess that our basis for allowing or not allowing bands without articles would, at least partially, depend on whether there are so many Christian punk bands with sources but no article that we would need to limit the list in such a way. I doubt that there are, especially if we raised the criteria to at least two sources per band, but I'm not an expert on this. What does everyone else think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the point I was trying to make in the above paragraph: if a band or artist already meets WP:BAND (because of or in addition to having at least two sources), but hasn't been given an article yet, would it be acceptable to list them here for the time being?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I say yes. And it would be best to have it as a redlink, to encourage editors to create the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

I can source 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 "punk" bands the way you morons have. If the 77s because they played new wave and the omnibus "alternative music" genres then I could certainly do it, if they don't need articles but all I need is sources. This, however, flies in the face of WP:WTAF and more importantly Wikipedia:Red link "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Easy there Walter. Im not going to take part in this discussion because it's not metal, but I am going to moderate. There's no use for namecalling and BIG agression DCcomicslover (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Based on the standards used on this page, DC Talk should be included because there are many reviews of the song "Jesus Freak" that indicate it's "grunge inspired". And then we could just as well add Larry Norman since he did an all-out punk rendition of "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music". I could go on but those are a few that start the process.

Then we are adding a supposedly consensus opinion (show me where that is) that non-notable bands (by Wikipedia standards, any band that does not have an article is not notable) should be included if we can find a WP:RS that indicates that they're both punk (or some sub-genre of it) and Christian. That goes completely against Wikipedia standards. So I'll be bold and call this article the aggregation of fecal matter that it is and demand changes now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid listing bands without articles. I also agree that we need more than just an obscure reference on about one or two songs that are punk or have punk influence. It should at least be a recording or two. (Or half of two recordings or something similar.) I'd go over a lot of these bands myself, but I'm trying to keep my involvement on Wikipedia minimal during my college semester. (As an aside, I'm surprised at the emotions that this list generates! It's just an attempt to list bands that fall under a fairly arbitrary description.)--¿3family6 _contribs 21:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually ended up including DC Talk on my hardcore list due to a couple of sources I found, but that's for another talk page.

First off, the consensus I mentioned in my last edit summary can be found here. As for Wikipedia policy, if the "group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." (italics mine) I don't think the condition is really applicable here, since, in my experience, there's a very small number of Christian punk bands at that precise level of notability (having sources but no article, that is). The red link issue is easily solved by simply writing the band/artist's name in plain text rather than trying to link to an article that doesn't exist.

On another note, Walter, you have gone on at length several times, both here and in the edit summaries, about how half the bands on the list barely qualify as punk and should be removed, but on the few times you have objected to specific entries, your objections seemed to boil down to either a bald assertion of "they're not punk" or reliance on non-contradictory sources, and the offending bands have either remained on the list (the 77s) or been removed for reasons other than those you provided (Fireflight and Kutless). This is NOT me ridiculing your attempts to improve the article, but it would be much more helpful if you could point out specific sources you feel are improperly used rather than just complaining that the whole article is rotten.

--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not consensus. You have twisted facts to suit your need. What I read is you asking the question. Another editor saying that it is frowned upon. You ignoring what was said and moving ahead. The new consensus is not to include as two editors have commented here against it.

As for your complete lack of knowledge of what the bands you have listed sound like and blaming me for saying they're not a punk sub-genre, mu. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I put up an "expert needed" template," though that probably won't go anywhere.--¿3family6 _contribs 10:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the template is completely necessary, but it can't hurt.

Walter, ignoring the fact that you were one of the two editors then and now, if you actually read the whole discussion, you would have noticed that the last post, by 3family6, included the phrase, "I agree with Invisiboy. If a band is mentioned in multiple reliable sources, it should be listed even if the article has not yet been created (this also can help keep IPs from getting frustrated, as they can't create articles themselves, but may have found a reliably mentioned artist.)" I don't blame him for the recent change in opinion as I imagine he is fairly preoccupied with school and couldn't remember the case as previously presented, but the fact that you completely ignored that final post makes it seem as if you yourself are, as you say, "twisting the facts to suit your need".

Furthermore, under Wikipedia policy, it wouldn't matter if I had never heard of a single band on this list, so long as I can find a source that qualifies their inclusion here. Again, if you feel some of the sources do not meet that requirement, it would be much more helpful to point out some examples rather than condemning the whole article. If we were adding bands based on how editors think they sound, you would have a lot more cause to be angry at me.

I'm not sure what mechanics you were intending for the last part of that sentence, but if you are suggesting that we start removing reliably sourced bands from this list simply because you claim that they aren't punk, you probably didn't read WP:V all that carefully.

In summary, I am not in any way trying to antagonize you or keep you from improving the article, but if your only contribution is going to be to use talk pages and edit summaries to condemn the entire article and complain that various entries "aren't punk, just listen to them!", I kindly ask that you get over it and try making some more helpful suggestions (specific sources you feel are misused would be a good start). --Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In regard to bands without articles, I think generally we should avoid them, unless there is a very exceptional reason that a band be added. If it is to be listed, it should be a redlink, as the only bands that should be listed without articles are those for which an article is likely to be created. Basically, I say we should avoid listing bands without articles, unless there is a very strong reason for a particular band's inclusion, and the band should be a redlink if included to encourage editors to create the article.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To respond to Invisiboy42293, under Wikipedia policy, WP:RS does not state that you can add items to lists just because you have a reliable source for it. It's not possible to point to other lists that do this since I don't know of any. Most lists don't reference items in the list, which I think is a problem, and most lists don't include blank entries, if they're well-managed. I don't think that you're being antagonistic, just misguided. I'm not suggesting that we remove reliably sourced bands at all. What I'm saying is that we have to start looking at what it means to be on the Christian punk list. We've discussed it before and you've fudged. Basically, any time a genre appears, it influences music and all music irrevocably changes because of it. Punk, as it is narrowly defined, started in the 1970s and stayed underground until the late 80s. It was then toned-down and bands like Green Day made it acceptable. You have pop punk. On the other end of the spectrum, metal was influenced by punk, but hardcore is more metal than it is punk. However, some fringe hardcore bands are probably more punk than metal. And then it influenced Ska and you end up with third wave Ska bands. Alternative is used to describe far too many bands from R.E.M. to Buddy Miller. So just because a genre has been influenced by punk doesn't mean it is a punk band. And just because you have a RS saying that a band has been influenced by or plays a genre (that the reviewer may not fully understand) that has been influenced by punk does not mean that the band belongs on this list.

You have to weigh the entire band's career. We may need to indicate that the period of the band's career where they were punk. So in a case like Mad at the World where they started as a synth-pop band and moved through various genres until they ended as a psychedelic pop band, the period where they were an appropriate genres should be listed.

On another note, the simple solution may be to indicate which sub-genre the bands perform (or performed) in, much like the metal list.

As for notability guidelines, Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates states that non-notable items can be added to lists, precisely because they may not merit an article, so perhaps I'm making too much of this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the notability issue, I think the redlinks idea that 3family6 suggested might be a good solution in cases where a band is notable enough that someone will probably create an article soon anyway. In other cases (such as JFH's Indie Reviews and some Cross Rhythms entries), it would probably be better to list them in plaintext (as is done on the List of emo artists) if at all. It would also probably be best to try and find multiple sources before adding a band, which was the original consensus anyway and would keep the new additions from becoming excessive.

In response to Walter, while I understand where you're coming from now, I would like to make a few points:

• Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think any bands on here have been added simply for being "alternative" (which is indeed way too broad a category).
• Again, I might be mistaken, but I don't think any bands were added simply on the basis of sources that only said "punk-influenced". As a general side suggestion, I think we should try adding quotes to some of the references, since it would make it much easier to see how specific the sources actually are rather than clicking on every single one.
• While I'm admittedly not as familiar with the history of punk as you seem to be, the styles we've included so far have sources that describe as having punk in their sound rather than just being "punk-influenced". According to AllMusic and some other sources, garage rock is considered an early incarnation of punk and new-wave is considered a pop-oriented spinoff that appeared alongside post-punk. Outside of that, I don't know of any more tenuously punk styles we've included.
• If the reviewer works for a place like AllMusic or Jesus Freak Hideout, both of which have been covering music for years, we can only assume that they know what they're talking about and have no leverage to say whether the reviewer "fully understands" what they're talking about (unless the reviewer himself admits it or another RS contradicts it).
• I think one album isn't too much of a stretch since they tend to last a long time in terms of a band's image. However, I agree that there should be some way of distinguishing bands with punk periods from full-on punk bands. I was thinking of something like putting "(early)" next to a band's name and directly quoting the source in more complicated cases. Listing genres, as seen in this list's previous incarnation, is too complicated and takes up too much space. Even the metal list doesn't do it anymore.

Overall, I think the list itself is okay, but we definitely need to go over some of the sources at some point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Once my college semester is over I should be able to help going over this list, pruning it if need be.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Applying for 'Expert' position - I don't know how one can really claim to be an expert in this field per sae - I have no degree in "Christian Punk", but I and another friend have been running ChristianPunks.co.uk for about 10 years now. It's one of the longest standing resources on CP on the net - (we just got taken out by a bug, but we will be up and running again shortly). And we've long wanted to get this list updated, both including current and expired bands... Bigonroad (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have you and any reliable sources you can bring to the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

U2?

I realize this is a bit of a stretch, but I've heard them identified as both Christian (Cross Rhythms in particular seems dead convinced of this) and post-punk. Obviously there are billions of articles on the band and I'm too lazy to sift through them all, but here are the two most specific sources I've been able to find:

• From a Cross Rhythms album review: Having established themselves as Christians in one of the most vital new bands to come out of the post-punk era, U2 now broke fresh ground...
• From their AllMusic bio:With its textured guitars, the band's sound was undeniably indebted to post-punk...[Boy] was unlike most recordings by U2's post-punk contemporaries, and the band earned further attention for its public embrace of Christianity; only [bassist Adam] Clayton was not a practicing Christian.
• Also, another AllMusic review by the same author directly describes them as a post-punk band.

Does anyone know of other sources that support this?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Give it a rest. They are not post-punk, but they are only "indebted to post-punk". This is a clear example of you taking a phrase to mean whatever you want it to mean, not what it actually means. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, I'm not adding them without consensus. To be fair, though, if you'll reread my post, I also provided another AllMusic review from the same writer that specifically calls them a post-punk band (those exact words).--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Look. You've added more than that without consensus and with more tenuous links to a genre. All I'm saying is that don't get any ideas about adding U2 with weak refs such as those you presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to. Like I said, I don't have the determination to sift through all the articles on the band looking for a source, so I came here with these beginning sources to see if anyone knew of any stronger ones. I think the two AllMusic refs are pretty specific aside from that one quote ("U2's post-punk contemporaries" "[the band's] public embrace of Christianity" "they were a post-punk band..."(from the album review)) but I'm sure there are better ones out there.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Christian" aspect of U2, while I would personally disagree with the labeling, is pretty much solidly verifiable. The bigger question is the punk and post-punk side. These are links that I found: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].--¿3family6 _contribs 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice job! I think this and this would be enough to source them as post-punk. However, I was wondering if there might be some better refs for them as a Christian band; the sources I gave in my original post seem to describe the band members' beliefs more than their music. Do you know of any sources that are more direct in associating them with Christian music?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's amazing that Walter and Invisiboy van get along everywhere elsse EXCEPT this list. idk if anyone posted this yet but heres a New York Times artical tat.. well. Talks a little about the bands religiousness http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/arts/music/14pare.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=U2:%20The%20Catharsis%20in%20the%20Cathedral DCcomicslover (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Hardcore list too... =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This CT review, particularly the last paragraph, is probably the most explicit identification of the band as Christian I've seen, though admittedly that's not saying much. I think this with the two post-punk refs I gave in my last comment (the book and the allmusic album review) would be enough to add them. Any objections?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also this from Cross Rhythms is pretty good for their Christianity.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

An issue I just thought of...would combining the sources for Christianity and the sources for post-punk be considered WP:SYNTH? I don't think so, since the very genre is a combination of both elements, but then again, the writers calling them post-punk might not consider them Christian and the writers calling them Christian might not consider them post-punk. I think a solution might be to use the two AllMusic refs since they're both by the same author and make both assertions. Thoughts?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would be an issue as per your first statement: in essence, the genre is a fusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

NOT a list of Christian punk bands

This is NOT a list of Christian punk bands by any stretch of the most vivid imagination. It's not that 99% are missing, it's the bands that are listed here. Sure, there's a few punk bands in there. But when you get just silly with it (Jonas Brothers, Joy Electric, 16 Horsepower, Me Without You) and...well most of the ones here, it's obvious that this is either a joke or someone's grandmother wrote it. Those sources surely do not claim many of these bands to be punk and if they do...they are NOT a reputable source. In the case of 16 Horsepower, it's neither a punk band nor Christian (though their music is excellent.) Their singer informed me he was kicked out of the band because they didn't like what he was singing about (Christianity was infused in their dark lyrics.) If this list is to be believed, then you may as well declare Tina Turner, Nsync, Janis Joplin, and En vogue to be punk bands or punk derivative. And no, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest. Some of these bands are punk, most of them are not. And half of those couldn't be thought to be even the most distant of relatives to punk rock or any other bohemian style of music. There are actually many wonderful punk bands. This list should not be used as a resource as the majority of it is completely invalid. To the degree that I'm not sure if this wasn't meant as a joke. The only argument against that hypothesis is that there are a few bands on this list that should be here. Where is Clay? Nobody Special? Crayon? It's even missing Rodent Emporium!! Someone please take this page down. If you're going to make an actual list, be serious about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.180.193 (talk • contribs) 2012 March, 14 23:09:55‎ UTC

This comment was left in the article space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Troll much? DCcomicslover (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Not sure what that means. The anon returned about 24 hours later and added a further comment. I simply removed that, although it makes some valid points. I have suggested that the editor discuss the issues here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In short, the editor has made very valid points that should be addressed. Some can be addressed by indicating that the artists don't have Wikipedia articles, but apparently that doesn't mean anything on this list. Some can be addressed by indicating that this is punk and sub-genres, excluding hardcore. However, the discussion points are otherwise valid. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is where you are out to piss other people off. What goood points did this troll have? (not debating you, I just like lists) DCcomicslover (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover

He's not trying to annoy anyone. He's stating an obvious fact: this list was hijacked a few months ago and the definition of punk was watered-down to include derivatives of punk, and genres where the punk influence are so unrecognizable that they're not even related. However, that doesn't influence this one editor who insists they're all punk. Well, they're all rock-a-billy then too. Or they're all ragtime. They're all pre-historic chants. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, we should sweep for questionable entries, and discuss the sources and the genre. Also, whether Jesusfreakhideout is a reliable source was never definitively decided on the reliable sources noticeboard, so the use of that site needs to be cleared up as well.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We do need another sweep for questionable entries, but I'm with DCcomicslover on this one. I don't see why we should give this guy any serious attention. First of all, both of his messages are completely original research- and point of view-based; the only rationale he provides for his conclusion that "most" of the entries "aren't punk" is what he claims a band member told him (anyone can say that; by the way, I'm Mel Gibson's brother and he said...), and listing five bands he claims to be non-punk. Of those five, one I removed due to a weak source (16 Horsepower), one is pop punk (Jonas Brothers), one is new wave (Joy Electric), one is post-hardcore and so probably should not be on here anyway (mewithoutYou), and one (Focused) is not on the list and doesn't even have an article, so I don't know where he got that one from...all of which he might have know if he'd actually taken a look at the sources, which he clearly didn't. ("Those sources surely do not claim many of these bands to be punk and if they do...they are NOT a reputable source." So essentially, he gets to pick which sources are reliable.) He then lists four bands he thinks should be on the list, only one of which (Crayon) has an article but is probably not notable, and only two of which (Nobody Special and Rodent Emporium) have actual sources. He also claims that the "majority" of the lists entries are "light pop bands", which leads me to wonder if he's ever heard of pop punk or new wave.

This is clearly just some punk purist fanboy who wanted to vent.

P.S. That said, he is right that we need to get hardcore bands off the list. There's some confusion on my part that I wanted to clear up first, but I'll get to that later.

P.P.S. Bands with no articles are only supposed to be on here if they otherwise meet WP:BAND.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't accuse anon of something without proof. In short, comment on the content, not the editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yesss.... Anon is definitely a troll. 20:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)DCcomicslover — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCcomicslover (talk • contribs)

Anon makes a valid point but does so in an aggressive way. This does not make anon a troll. At least anon can string together a thought. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The anon's latest comment

"Dakoda Motor Co! ha ha :). Cute. I sure am glad you don't put any hardcore bands on here. I mean what if the Chariot were listed, huh? Oh and kid...go ahead and add Woven Hand to your list if you like. They absolutely positively don't belong here, but when David Eugene (you know...that guy I lie about talking to) left 16 horsepower forever ago, it's the band he formed and it's an actual Christian band."

• Dakoda Motor Co. are identified as pop punk by John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout.
• Like all Wikipedia articles, this list is a work in progress. We are planning to do a sweep for hardcore bands soon, but the time spent reverting your vandalism to the page is considerably delaying that.
• I never accused you of lying; what I meant was that, this being the internet, there's no way for us to know whether you did or not, and even if you did, Wikipedia policy generally forbids using the subject of the article as a source (see WP:PRIMARY), so we couldn't use the information anyway.
• Unless they meet WP:BAND, we couldn't add them even if they did belong.

I apologize for being overly rude to you before, and I hope this sufficiently addresses your concerns.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the time spent reverting the vandalism is two clicks and minimal typing. The rest is as per guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Just No

Jonas Brothers aren't Christian. Jonas Brothers aren't punk. U2 isn't Christian. U2 isn't punk. Why? Listen to Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, or Social Distortion they don't sound like any of them. THEY DON'T EVEN SOUND LIKE GREEN DAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!! And their lyrics aren't christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.110.13 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We are debating these entries already. Feel free to join the discussion, but please provide some actual verifiable material by reliable sources, not just your opinion. Thanks!--¿3family6 _contribs 18:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Punk is more than Green Day. I too don't like the watered-down interpretation of punk but as the lede points-out this lists bands "that fall under the category of punk or one of its sub-genres". As for U2 not being Christian, that's an opinion that some share. I don't, and many reviewers and writers on Christian music don't either. Six pages of the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music are dedicated to them but indicates that they're "not typically identified as a Christian band". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jonas Brothers are pop punk. U2 is post-punk. Both bands are closely tied to the Christian music industry, whether they acknowledge it or not. There are multiple sources for this information, the majority of which are cited in this very list, right next to both entries. You might want to read WP:V; all information on Wikipedia, including band genres, must be supported by reliable sources, not your own opinion.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Organize by subgenres?

It seems to have worked for the hardcore list (or at least made it look better), so I was thinking we could try to do the same here. My ideas for the groupings are as follows:
Old-school punk bands
Pop punk bands
Post-punk and new wave bands
Good idea? Bad idea? What's everyone else think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm intentionally leaving out garage rock bands because, while it is a legitimate proto-punk genre, there are maybe three/four such bands on this list, and (I'm pretty sure all but at the very least) most of them have sources for other punk genres anyway (Switchfoot and 77s for post-punk, Bleach for "classic punk", etc.), so there's not really any point.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearer: I would like to do the same sectioning off by sub-genre that was recently implemented on the hardcore list. My suggestions for section titles on this list are in bold above. Approved?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I"m fine with it. Though "Old-school" is maybe misleading. Maybe just "punk?" But that looks bad, too. Maybe someone else can think of something.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Traditional punk rock", maybe?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the draft. Content criticism is totally welcome this time, since my bizarre obsession with columns matching up may have caused me to stretch some refs a bit.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks nice. I don't see and problems with it, but that was a quick review.--¿3family6 _contribs 02:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The addition's been made. Again, any tagging of dubious sourcing is welcome.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)