Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Anberlin

Mediator comment

Hello. Sorry I'm a little late in making myself known here. Had a few unforseen things I had to look at elsewhere, but you now have my full attention. To clarify how this process will work. My role here is to help you both to reach agreement on the issue in dispute, not to express opinions or take sides. Hopefully by the end of this mediation you will be able to reach an outcome that is acceptable to both of you. I will try to guide you as to what issues it might be helpful for you to discuss - but this process is about you. If you're unhappy with the way things are going at any time, please let me know.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential. WjBscribe 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is Christian rock?

I see you're trying to get to grips with the sourcing, which is good. I've read through your past discussions. I just wanted to clarify, how would each of you define "Christian rock"? I'd be interested (and I think it would be useful to have that clearly in mind) in what you both think it is and what elements a group needs to have for its music to be considered "Christian rock". WjBscribe 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69

Rock music that is generally on a Christian label, played at Christian festivals, and sold at places like Christian book stores. Lyrically with references to god and Christianity or Christian ideals, in numerous songs.Hoponpop69 16:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pbroks13

A band would be considered Christian Rock if the majority, around 7/10 or up, of thier songs have Biblical, Christian references. And I keep saying this, but does the band not choose its genre? I think the band knows if their main focal point on thier songs is Christian or not. Pbroks13 04:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope of mediation

How do each of you feel about the article's content under the heading "Anberlin and Christian music"? Do you think that it should remain as is or should we consider how that section should read as part of this mediation? WjBscribe 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Pbroks13

I think no matter what happens, people should know that Anberlin does not want to be listed as a Christian Band. Pbroks13 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

hoponpop69

And I think so to, but I also feel that despite the band not considering themselves a Christian band, many sources list them as one, they have lyrics that reference religion, and are on a primarily Christian label. I think the section Anberlin and Christianity covers this.

The main thing I want though is to have Christian rock listed under genres.Hoponpop69 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets start this discussion

I feel Christian rock needs to be listed, so many sources support it.Hoponpop69 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, most if not all of those sources are from christian websites. Many other reliable sources do not list them as a christian band. My thought is the reason those christian websites have them listed as christian is to somehow maybe convert people in a way. Besides, Anberlin has stated in an interview they are not a christian band. Pbroks13 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yet again what the band considers themselves holds no weight. Also you stated only one other person besides me believe Christian rock should be listed, well take a look at the talk page there are a lot more than 2 people with this opinion.Hoponpop69 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll give this example again. Let's say there was an article about you on Wikipedia stating that you believe Satan is our savior, and that you're a Satanist, and it came from Satanist, relaible sources. Now, you yourself have told people that it is not true, but yet, they continue to classify you as that. Shouldn't it be changed, since you know who you are, not other people. You know your not a Satanist, so why should you be classified as that?

And once again, you only have an argument against one part of what I said. Try hitting all the points I gave, like I do for you. And my bad for exagerating, I'll try to be completely literal from now on. So tell me, why are all your sources from Christian websites, while I havent found any Non-Christian based websites stating that they are a Christian band? Pbroks13 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're comparing apples to oranges, there is

a.) no such genre as satanist rock b.) no reliable satanist sources on music

What are you trying ot argue that the band is not Christians so they can't be a christian rock band? (I would seriously doubt this based on some of their lyrics)

You say I can't find any sources form non-Christian sites saying they are Christian rock. The only reason I didn't list more sources was because I didnt want to clutter up the page with more than the first 3 sources that came up, so here are three non-Christian sources: [1] [2] [3]

Hoponpop69 03:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No such thing?? I beg to differ [4]

We could easily change that to muslim music if you want. And there you go. I ask the same question with instead of satan, put in muslim.

And, I never said that they weren't Christian, because the most definately are. But just because they are christian does not mean they make christian music. Almost all band memebers of any band have a religion, but that doesnt mean the band is.

Now as for those sources,

1. That is not a reliable source, it's was written by one person with his own opinions.
2. I will give you the Yahoo! one.
3. Florida Atlantic University? Yep, thats a huge music website... sarcasm.

That gives you one source, Yahoo. As opposed to AOL Music, Billboard, iTunes, Amp'd Mobile, and Rhapsody. Im sure theres plenty more, but I think you get the point. All of them do not list Anberlin a Christian music.Pbroks13 04:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first one is from a music critic who writes for an Atlanta newspaper. I'd consider that valid. You want some more sources? Here:

[5] [6]

This includes Rhapsody which you claimed did not support my claims.Hoponpop69 16:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta newspaper? I'm pretty sure that was not in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. And if he was, would be not still be entitled to his own opinion?

Oh, I was in a rush, I didnt even notice Rhapsody. Either way, a huge amount of reliable sources do not list them as christian rock, while only a few list do them as Christian. Pbroks13 04:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective, you have shown three sources that list them as alternative rock. I could just as well say a huge amount of reliable sources doesn't list them as that.Hoponpop69 23:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wal-mart, Soundpedia, Lyricsmania, Last.fm

We can do source arguing all day, but i dont think it will matter in the end. So there needs to be a deciding factor... so why shouldnt it be the band themselves?

Because what the band says holds no weight on wikipedia, it's a first party source.Hoponpop69 18:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand that... but obviously the third-party sources dont know either... every source says something different

and before you go crazy literal on me, I dont actually mean every source... I should hope you know what I meant though Pbroks13 05:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So can we agree to keep the article the way it is now? Also while we're discussing this I have found sources such as Rolling Stone and the New York Times list them as Emo, so I feel we should list that under genre as well.Hoponpop69 04:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Just because a source says that does not mean they are right. Therefore, just because your sources claim anberlin is a christian band does not make it right. Anberlin knows who anberlin, but im sure you'll say "what the band says holds no weight on wikipedia." well, then what does. All the sources dont know what they are talking about, but anberlin does. Pbroks13 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking in circles! I'm not gonna explain myself to you again. Where is the moderator?Hoponpop69 02:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then make valid points! You were using sarcasm when you said add emo cause there is sources. Well, there are different sources for a ton of genres of anberlin! Obviously the sources dont know exactly what Anberlin is, correct? Please answer that question. Dont be such a, for lack of better words that can be used, jerk about this. Pbroks13 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Um I wasn't being sarcastic at all. And to answer your question I think some sources know more than the band itself. Sources that derive from people who study and write about music as a career would be better at placing a sound into a category.Hoponpop69 07:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest then, thats kind of rediculous. List the as Emo? No way. Anyways, this isnt about Emo, its about Christian rock.

So if they know what they are talkinmg about, why do so many sources have diffrerent genres for them? Pbroks13 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Where we've go to

OK, I've been letting talk this through because I think it was helping to pin down the issues and progress was being made. It looks like your now a little stuck. Lets see if we can recap where this discussion has arrived at. Which of the following statements would each of you agree with?

1. Anberlin does not describe itself as a Christian rock group
2. Anberlin does not like to be decribed as a Christian rock group
3. Anberlin is described by some sources as a Christian rock group
4. Anberlin is described by only Christian sources as a Christian rock group
5. Anberlin is described by a range of sources as a Christian rock group
6. It is disputed whether Anberlin is a Christian rock group or not

If you could say below which numbers you agree a with (and explain why you can't agree with any statements you don't think are valid...) WjBscribe 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69

I agree with numbers 1 and 6. 4 is absolutely false.

I also agree with either 3 or 5, depending on what your definition of a range is. I think we have to look at the other genre that is listed, Alternative rock. I would say that it has the same range of sources as that.Hoponpop69 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pbroks13

I agree with 1, 2, 3, 6.

4: There are some sources that are non-christian websites that list them as christian, although there are much more reliable ones that do not.

5: I'm confused on what you mean by "a range." If you mean both Christian and Non-Christian websites, then you cant really compare since there are not really any Alternative websites and Non-Alternative websites. But if you only look at Non-Christian websites, then theres not too many that list them as Christian. Pbroks13 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me as many sites that list them as alternative as the secular ones I've shown you that list them as Christian.Hoponpop69 02:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving forwards

[[|150px|Anberlin]]
Origin	Winter Haven, Florida, United States
Genres	Alternative Rock Christian Rock (disputed)
Years active	2002—present
Labels	Tooth & Nail Records
Members	Stephen Christian Deon Rexroat Joseph Milligan Christian McAlhaney Nathan Young
Past members	Nathan Strayer Joey Bruce Jerad Griffin
Website	www.anberlin.com www.anberlincities.com www.myspace.com/anberlin

OK, I think one of the problems is that there isn't much room for compromise between you. At the moment your stuck with either including the genre "Christian rock" or not including it and it appears unlikely that either of you will be able to convince the other. So I'd like to investigate a possible middle ground you might both be able to agree to.

I see that you've both agreed with numbers 6. Might you be able to agree to some sort of phrasing under "genre" that made it clear that the status as a "Christian rock" group was controversial or disputed? Perhaps refering the reader to the section where this is discussed to find out more? WjBscribe 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pbroks13

Yeah, I think that would be fine with me, but how would you put it there while making it look good? Maybe some sort of Sub-Genre?Pbroks13 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69

No, there is already a whole section of the article on that. Furthermore I feel Emo should also be listed based on rolling stone and The NY Times.Hoponpop69 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Okay, and I think they should be labled Pop, Post-Punk, Punk, Adult Alternative, and Indie as well. Pbroks13 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice how the info on that mp3.com site was submitted from Allmusic guide, a site notorious for being an unreliable source of information? The one from leechers is just from an unheard of site with a million spam porn links on the page. The allofmp3 and rhapsody ones are just single solidary sources, you can try finding others that agree with them but I doubt you would. And the last link doesn't even mention Anberlin. Rolling Stone and The New York Times, are on the other hand two of the most famous and looked up to sources in the print industry.Hoponpop69Hoponpop69 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay cool. But, lets talk about yours. For one, yes, an article from the NY times did list them as emo, but there are other articles in there that dont, so I dont see how that is reliable at all. Secondly, for the Rolling Stones, here is the official artist link for anberlin on the rolling stones website [7]. Where you found emo, I have no clue. But its not like it matters because Im sure you found it in an article somewhere... which there are others that dont list them as emo. So it looks like all my sorces were as reliable as yours... so how bout we add them all? No, lets not add any more than we need. Pbroks13 15:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator comment

For reference and as Pbroks13 asked I have included a copy of the sort of thing I was suggesting for the infobox on the right. As this compromise does not appear acceptable to both parties, I suggest we broaden the discussion. WjBscribe 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative approach

Given the new arguments raised above, I think it would be useful to have a broader discussion. I would suggest considering the question: "For any given group how do we decide what genre(s) to include them under?" in particular this raises the question of:

1. Where groups have been described as many genres, how many should be listed in the infobox?
2. How do we decide which to list?
3. How important is it that inclusion in a particular genre is controversial?
4. How should the controversy be flagged up to the reader?

If we can agree a general approach, it may be possible to then agree its application to this article. WjBscribe 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop69

1.) I would say around four or five at the most, as long as they were all well sourced, some articles list too many unsourced and unnecesary genres like The Rolling Stones page.

2.) A combination of sources and consensus.

3.) I feel it is very important that Christian rock be listed, as I feel without it the articles not telling the whole story.

4.) In a section of the article, as it is now. Hoponpop69 03:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pbroks13

1. The group should only have as many as they need. I dont think things like "rock" should be listed (not that anyone proposed it). Thats way to broad. But if they need many genres to describe them, then do so, but I dont think that happens very often. I like what the example above looks like. I think its perfect.
2. To decide... I'd usually say by reliable sources, but sources usually dont agree. So, I say by a majority vote. I was kind of expecting more poeple to jump in to this mediation, but oh well.
3. When the band does not list them as it. But I've said that more than enough.
4. I think the above example is fine.

Pbroks13 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More References to the Band's Christian Rock nature

From their [artist bio] as found on their record label's website: "As for the band's mission as Christians, Stephen says matter-of-factly, 'It's not like we have a huge platform. We're not Coldplay or U2, but I want to touch people's lives. I've got two routes to go. I can either go the sex, drugs, and rock & roll route - which is so temporal - or I can invest in people's lives. When I look back on my life, I want it to have meaning.'"

Their song "Ready Fuels" was track 16 of a compilation album of Alternative Christian Rock titled [X 2003 Experience the Alternative], subtitled "30 of the Year's Best Christian Rock Artists and Songs!" (emphasis added).

Their song "Paperthin Hymn" was track 6 of a compilation DVD of Alternative Christian Rock titled [X Christian Rock Hits The Videos 2007] (emphasis added.) Note that Amazon lists this compilation in several Christian-related genres, including "Christian Alternative", "Christian Rock", "Christian Contemporary", and "Christian General".

They have performed at at least one [venue that only shows Christian bands]. Unfortunately I can't find a site with past dates, but I know they have played there on at least 2 occasions. (66.177.5.252)

You know, that's great and all, but it kind of holds no weight right now. Yes, yes, they are list christian on Amazon -- that's great. But we've been going back and fourth with that. I'd also like to point out neither of those songs have christian references in them. I mean, its still disputed whether they are a Christian band or not, but I have a question. Do you think the above example would work on Anberlin's page? Pbroks13 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting into OR, but some of "Paperthin Hymn"'s lyrics include "So, laugh and love / Live free and sing / When life is in discord / Praise ye the Lord". Jpers36 15:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it could work, but it seems to be based on a false premise: that the band 'does not want to be labeled as a Christian band.' There are two references in the article that folks seem to be using as 'proof' of this premise. However, the title of one of those references is "Anberlin Aren't Christian Rock, But It's OK If You Call Them That" (emphasis added.) In other words, they don't seem to have a problem with the label at all. 208.9.157.5 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that too. But, I mean, who decided that? Scott Bryson (the interviewer)? And what do you mean by "false premise"? Christian stated, "...I definitely don't classify us as a Christian band." That would seem like a true premise, no? I dont see why anyone wouldnt be content with it saying "disputed," unless anyone can think of a better word? Pbroks13 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The false premise is that they don't want to be classified as Christian. His statement doesn't indicate a desire to not be labeled that way, only that that is not how he would classify their music. The difference is subtle but important. If they didn't want to be classified as a Christian band, they would not have signed with a record label known for signing Christian bands, they would not have allowed their songs to be included on Christian compilation albums, and they would not play in venues that only show Christian bands. If they truly did not want to be labeled as Christian, they would be more careful to avoid situations where they would give the impression that they are. 208.9.157.5 11:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, could you clarify - are you Hoponpop69 or a new party to this mediation? WjBscribe 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's understandible. You're right. But still, do you agree with the above example? Pbroks13 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To mediator: My apologies. I am actually a new party to this mediation who was just trying to inject some other logical arguments (bad choice of words, I know) to the "yes, they are a Christian band" side of the equation. I hope that is okay. (I am still a wiki n00b and am unfamiliar with how some of these processes work...and have been too lazy to read up on them, quite frankly.)

To pbroks13: if it would bring peace and balance to the discussion, I think it could work. I'm not sure I like the word 'disputed', however. It seems 'harsh', for lack of a better term. If we could find some way to say "Christian Rock (depending on who you ask)", that seems to be the most accurate depiction of the situation. Obviously the parenthetical wording needs to be more precise, though. 208.9.157.5 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to join the discussion - I recommend you create an account (which is free and quick) as this will allow you to be more readily identified (especially if your IP address varies) but thats completely up to you. It might be worth you signing the main page just to clarify that you are a third person who wishes to participate in the process. WjBscribe 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediator comment

There are several options that could be considered instead of disputed:

1. "Alternative rock" could be made bold to distinguish it as the primary genre if there is agreement that this is the case
2. We could have two genre sections to allow for "also described as:"
3. Alternative words could be considered or perhaps simply (see below) linking to the relevant section.

Just some ideas for everyone to consider... WjBscribe 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• I highly disagree with option #1 because I don't see what makes that the "primary genre". Option three would work for me if christian rock was listed and linked to that section of the article. (Hoponpop69 - 23:44, June 13, 2007)_{signed by Pbroks13}

• Just a quick comment to Hoponpop69: The fact that most their songs dont have any Christian references makes their main genre alternative. Anyways, I mostly agree with is number two, depending on what it would look like. Pbroks13 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Show me the sources that list them as Alternative Rock, and I can assure you you'll find just about the same number of sources listing them as Christian Rock or Emo.Hoponpop69 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm a new (fourth) party to the mediation, and, seeing as I've been following it for a while, I thought I'd share my thoughts. I'm a proponent of the idea that Anberlin should be listed as a Christian Rock band, and I think that the third suggestion above would be a suitable compromise to this situation. Also, to Pbroks13: I don't know if I would agree with your statement in your last post that most of their songs contain no Christian reference, but I don't think that's the real focus of the mediation at this point, so I'll leave it at that. —Mears man 02:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hoponpop69: Thats actually not what I said...

Mears Man: I said that because of Hoponpop69's comment about primary genres. And also,

BFTBM has one song with Christian referneces: Cadence

NTFP has three songs with Christian referneces: Paperthin Hymn, (The Symphony Of) Blasé, The Feel Good Drag

Cities has six songs with Christian references: Godspeed, A Whisper And A Clamor, The Unwinding Cable Car, Hello Alone, Dismantle.Repair., (*Fin)

Thats 10 out of 31 songs (that doesnt include instrumentals, cover songs, B-sides, or other songs not released on an album) with Christian referneces. Im pretty sure 3/10ths is not a majority. But your right, its not important, I'm just saying. Pbroks13 04:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i would have to say no there not a christian band and i know there are many people how have gone on there and change the genre to Pop Punk, Or Emo, or Punk, or Indie rock, but most of genres are ture iam one of the people how had just change the genre to Punk and Emo. Iam i will say yes there they do have some songs that have a christian meaning. but the agian there are some that are not even christian. But If the Band Does not want to be consered christian rock then dont call them at. Thats why I think that kid Skateremorocker was right when he changed the Anberlin Genre.

I may soon leave this discussion process as I may leave wikipedia

Just thought I'd give everyone a heads up incase you wonder why I no longer participate. I could be gone as soon as tommorow, you should read the following talkpage section, as well as it's two subsections if you're wondering why I am leaving.[8] Hoponpop69 04:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where things stand?

OK, I'm not sure where things stand given Hoponpop69's departure. Are there still multiple parties involved in this discussion? I felt that we were moving forwards but obviously its now difficult to progress. Of those remaining, is there any particular proposed compromise above that you were happy with? WjBaway 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• You know, any one of those three are fine with me. Whatever everone agrees with works for me. Pbroks13 07:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Personally, I think that option number three (using (see below) to link to the appropriate section) would work best. I think that, out of the options presented, this would look best while still informing the reader that a considerable amount of people consider the band to be Christian rock, although it is disputed (although I think disputed is a bit too strong of a word to use in the actual box). —Mears man 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediator response

In light of the comments above and the fact that although Hoponpop69 appears to have left Wikipedia he did express a willingness for the (see below) option in this edit, I shall close this mediation implement that solution as the outcome of this discussion. WjBscribe 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)