Talk:Petra (band)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Final concert

We should probably end the "Farewell" section with a reference to Petra's final concert. I know there was some dispute about it because, if I remember right, the "final" concert of the official tour was to be New Year's Eve/Day, but another concert was booked to take place the day after, which was not technically part of the Farewell Tour (so the promoter of the earlier concert could promote it as "the final" concert). Anyway, if someone can pin those dates down and work it up, we should add that. Kirkman 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tribute Album

Not sure where it would fit but I came to this article to look for info about a tribute album. I believe it was called "Never say Dinosaur" or something like that and from memory it had a picture of a brown Tyranasarus type dinosaur on it surrounded by artist who were playing the Petra songs on the CD. That's about all I can recall, it would be good is someone added info to the article. - Waza 06:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard that album (pretty good, BTW) I was thinking about adding something somewhere. Perhaps an additional section with that and other tributes to the band. I'll see how to work it out. Thief12 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

InfoBox

How does everyone like the infobox i made? I got the genres from Petra's myspace. If anyone has any questions or comments just let me know on here. I'm also known as ggj7205 to Josh Renaud, if he wants to say hi to me.--24.64.223.203 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Hey man, it's me, Josh. I like the box. One question... in similar boxes for other bands, do they list only the final members of the band? Kirkman 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Josh, usually they say "Current members" and "past members" but since Petra had so many members, everyone figured to put them all in a section below the page. I tried to put all past members in the infobox one time, but it didn't turn out well. But I guess all members now are past members eh? Haha.24.64.223.203 22:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Re: "New Millennium"

Just a few things... When I have more time I might rewrite these myself:

The paragraph that says "In 2001 the band was signed to Inpop Records. Trying to pick up somewhere, guitarist and founder Hartman decided to re-join the band" is a bit misleading As the article states higher up, Hartman had retired from touring, but continued to play guitar, write, and produce for every album. So Hartman didn't "rejoin" the band. What happened is that Inpop decided to add Hartman back to the marketing, even though he wouldn't be joining the tour as guitarist. Quinton Gibson was the touring guitarist. So Hartman's picture appeared on the album and Inpop talked about the "core" of Petra being him, Schlitt, and Louie. But the truth is that very little was different from before. It was just a marketing gimmick.

"long-time drummer Louie Weaver was fired amidst lots of rumours and controversy. However, the band dissipated all rumours and geared up for their next album." This is also a bit misleading. The band did NOT dissipate all rumors. In fact, they refused to address rumors regarding the reason behind Louie's firing. I think this graf should be rewritten to reflect that initially the band's statement made it sound like Louie and the band had parted amicably. But Louie came out later and said explicity that he was fired by Schlitt and manager Wayne Seboa. Hartman responded to that (in an interview with me) saying that it was Schlitt alone who made the decision, in consultation with his pastor and with Hartman.

Yeah, I think it's all about semantics. I believe I can rewrite those paragraph or let you work it out. Whatever you feel like. Thief12 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote those two paragraphs. Check it out. Anyway, I don't know if we should reserve the details about Weaver's firing to his bio article and just mention it here. Thief12 21:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a pretty significant rewrite of the section. It's longer than it was before, but I think all the details are pretty good. Let me know. Kirkman 06:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

About the 2004 J&H tour, it's probably worth mentioning some of the highlights, like the reunion concert in Angola and Petra's first trip to India where they had huge crowds (i read estimates of around 20,000, IRC) Kirkman 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to start something about the concert in Angola, Indiana in those last paragraphs, but I know it's too little. Perhaps we can work it out from there. I also put something about it on the articles about some of the band members involved in the concert (Hartman, Hough, DeGroff, Glover, Simmons, Bailey, etc.) About the trips to India, I think you have more info about that than I do. Thanks for your help, Josh. Thief12 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just checked the "Trivia" section and I had put there an item about the concert in Angola. However, as I just said, perhaps that can be worked out into the article perse. Thief12 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

older entries

There's an NPOV flag, but no accompanying discussion, so I'm clearing the flag.

What????? I wanted to say how I thought it was sad that NO-ONE had put any articles about the albums.

I've been working with this article for awhile, so let's see if I can work with those later. Thief12 01:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've finished working with the whole discography and I threw in an additional page for the Beyond Belief mini-movie to boot. Thief12 00:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Good job! I did a few too.24.64.223.203 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

In regard to the grammar, we need to avoid opinion words. No doubt (no pun, intended) Petra was a great band but the article should contain facts only. Also, the text refers to Petra sometimes as "they" and sometimes as "it." It should be one or the other, not both. I'd love to see this become a featured article. Wordbuilder 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll vote for "it." Petra is a band, a singular entity. If a sentence talks about the band members, then "they" is appropriate. Kirkman 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

For anyone interested, I nominated this article to be a "Featured Article", but it needs the support from Wikipedians. If you want to vote for it, go here, read the procedure, and support the nomination. Thanks. Thief12 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I read some of the comments the others made on the nomination. There were some good points but I disagree with the one who said fan sites are not good sources. Some fan sites (including mine) have done in-depth, on-the-record interviews with key band members. I don't know how you can have a better source than Bob Hartman himself or John Schlitt. Kirkman 18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to add more citations. There are lots of good newspaper articles at johnschlitt.net and elswhere. BTW - the Echoes newspaper citation I added today is incomplete, but I'm hoping to get the rest of the details later this evening. Kirkman 18:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. I just finished polishing some paragraphs and other stuff here and there. I really appreciate your help. Thief12 19:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Petra and backmasking

Let's talk about backmasing. Petra has an obvious backwards message before "Judas Kiss." However there is also backmasking within the song "Witch Hunt." It is clearly audible if you play the song in reverse... It's a series of clips from the Wizard of Oz just like the ones you hear when the song plays forwards. The subject matter of the song makes it an obvious place for the band to include such backmasking.

I bring this up because somebody tried to add a note about Petra's backmasking without including a reference to Witch Hunt. Then someone over-rode my edit which included such a reference. If we're going to mention backmasking, we should note BOTH of Petra's uses of it. Kirkman 01:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Josh, I went back to listen to "Witch Hunt" to confirm your observations and couldn't catch it. I heard lots of samples from "Oz" but no backmasking. Can you provide me with a timestamp on that particular track where the backmasking begins so I can hear for myself? In the meantime, I plan to relisten to it with headphones on max. ;-) BTW, you make some good arguments regarding the subject matter of the song and its relation to the backmasking you say is there. Anyhoo, please don't revert to your old edit, as I added some stuff about the "Judas' Kiss" backmasking that should stay. Just edit my edit. --Mike Beidler 14:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you are playing the song backwards, listen from 2:10. During the next 10-15 seconds, you'll hear three crystal-clear messages. In order: "We'll look everywhere till we find that old witch"; "How about a little fire scarecrow?"; and "Hey everybody, we're gonna have us a witch hunt!" Kirkman 19:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thought on this. Rather than treat this as a point of trivia, maybe we should mold this part of the article into a paragraph or two on Petra's response to the backmasking controversy raised by various outspoken preachers. We could frame it like this: The preachers were accusing various rock bands of satanic backwards messages, which led to many Christians playing records backwards, seeking to uncover more. Petra's response was to record the words "What are you looking for the devil for, when you oughta be looking for the Lord?" backwards at the beginning of "Judas Kiss." They later wrote a song, "Witch Hunt," with lyrics lampooning these pointless crusades. "Witch Hunt" contained several backwards messages within it. Kirkman 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote Mike's most recent version of this section. Personally, I think this section would make more sense as part of the main article. It seems like much more than trivia to me. I think it would work very well as part of a section about Petra's trouble with anti-rock preachers and tele-evangelists. Kirkman 04:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed Perfect World has backmasking.--HappyBoy 22:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know that. Can you give some details on the time in the song where the backmasking occurs? 207.119.221.4 17:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In the intro to the song, and at some point just after the first chorus. There's probably another time somewhere. Anyway, play it backwards, you get some sort of guitar riff.--HappyBoy 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

II guys from petra

I believe II guys from petra should probably have its own wikipedia page, and mention of the project in the petra article kept brief. What do you all think? Kirkman 04:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into it in a week or two. Dan, the CowMan 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article about the album (see Vertical Expressions) that I created some time ago, but I don't know if an article of II Guys from Petra per se is warranted yet. Thief12 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible GA candidate

I think it would be a good idea if someone that has the time could nominate this for Good Article Status. It already underwent FA nomination twice, so should be able to get the GA nod. I do not contribute to this article regularly and would be a poor choice for making the requested edits for the GA review, but perhaps one of the main contributors could. Good luck. - cgilbert^{(talk|contribs)} 15:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, unless someon out there has big plans for overhauling this article, it's time to try for Good Article status. Someone responsible for the content of the article should nominate it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spottacus (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that it's almost there, but personally I am still not yet satisfied (with my own recent expansion). Dan, the CowMan 05:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one that started the article and I think it would be a good idea, and see what recommendations we can get out of that to improve the article. Thief12 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just nominated the article for Good Article Status. Let's see how it works out. Thief12 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I tagged this since trivia sections are frowned upon. I actually like trivia but the inclusion of such a section is apparently thought to weaken the article. It's not very big so it could probably be easily assimilated. I'd hate to have something so minor keep the article from advancing to the next quality rating. --Wordbuilder 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to merge most of the Trivia facts in the article. I put one in the Bob Hartman article, and I left others hidden. Thief12 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I am delisting this from the GA nominations page. While it's an admirable attempt at starting a solid article about a great band, it needs a lot of work before it can pass GA. Here are some problems:

It currently has several citation needed tags. These should be properly sourced; the article should have no cite tags as a nominee.
There are other instances of statements which are questionable and need sourcing, especially the critical reception section. This is one of the most important places where citations from reputable sources are absolutely needed - how do we know that a given album was generally well-received, or that they were criticized for their hard rock sound? Who criticized them, when, and where? Give specific reviews, or citations from published books about the band.
The article suffers from a journalistic tone throughout, and a pro-Petra writing bias that violates WP:NPOV. Much of the article will need a serious rewrite to correct this; for starters, avoid words and phrases like "classic", "what could be considered their worst point" (who considers it that, and why is their opinion taken as fact?), "claim was shut down", "to make matters worse", and the like. The reference to "decline of slick commercial rock music" sounds biased; Wikipedia does not make judgments as to what music is good or bad. Describe it musically, rather than using the normally pejorative "slick commercial".

This is just a start of the ways to start thinking about how to revamp the article for a better chance at GA status. One thing to consider is to look at some recent FA or GA band articles (such as The KLF, Gwen Stefani, Kate Bush, or Smashing Pumpkins) and try to model this entry around the writing style and layout. Instead of offering personal opinions, better to quote opinions from mainstream and/or mainstream Christian press outlets to demonstrate generally held opinions. Hope this helps put the article on more solid footing. Also, consider a visit to peer review once some more work has been done on it. Chubbles 06:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know there is a motorcycle ministry based in Hayden,Idaho...called the New Life Grave Robbers...The name of this ministry came from this song...and is also based on The Book of Matthew 10...The church which they hail from is New Life Community Church...God Bless You...66.239.255.17 17:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

NEVER SAY DINOSAUR

OK, posted this three times, hopefully this time it sticks around. HOKUS PICK did a cover of Adonai which was left off this project (though intended for it originally) but later released on their project B-Sides. I've seen stuff on wiki without references, I hope someone out there has the info. This time I listed a few websites, one with a download & one with the track listing. Short of writing HP, don't know how to prove it. Hope it stays this time. kthxbye.

Improving the article

Hi all. I'm trying to get the article to a great state so that we can garner an FA approval. I've added the box for awards, the footer Infobox.

I guess we need more solid information on all the band members and perhaps supporting articles on Petra's videos, their Awards and recognition, etc.

Any help/ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. aJCfreak yAk 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know you can count with me. I had plans to add citations but I see that's been worked out mostly. What else do you think it's necessary? Thief12 01:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I suggest working the article first to GA status before trying our hands at FA. Just my opinion :) Thief12 01:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure! We've gotta reach GA status first... Doesn't hurt to be ambitious, does it? :D Btw, I feel that the article needs more material... I mean, this is the band that started it all (mostly). In 1989, they kickstarted the modern worship/rock praise genre... and so on and so forth. I feel the article doesn't do justice to any of this. The thing is, such information is not available in many online sources cos back in the late 80s and early 90s, the Internet was simply not there. So... we could try primary references such as Hartman's More Power To Ya book. I've read it only once in my life and I can't get my hands on it now. Any possibilities that you would have it? Also, mentions of high-profile public performances, mentions of other pioneering activities undertaken. For example, their performing in awards ceremonies... Them coming to India - I think that it's a first for a Contemporary Christian group. It's definitely a first for a Christian rock band... Actually, the only other Christian act that has set foot in India is Delirious?, if I'm not much mistaken. :) Hope this helps for now. More later. Btw, any thoughts/feedback on the footer infobox? aJCfreak yAk 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I just "expanded" what the article says about Petra Praise 1 adding a sentence and a citation. Granted, more can be done, but it's a start. I also wrote excerpts about the band's concerts in India, with citations. Lemme know what you think. Thief12 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited that bit again - their visit to India was mentioned twice. With regard to crowds of over 20000, did you get that from their 2004 concert? Jus wonderin... And one more thingy - I noticed in our past GA nom that it was suggested we include atleast a few 30 sec clips of a few songs (Fair Use). Was thinking of any of the following - God Gave Rock and Roll To You (controversial song of that time), Killing My Old Man (again, controversial), King of Kings (shaping the modern praise genre), Beyond Belief (title track of their highest selling album), Right Place (change of sound with the line-up changes), a clip off of Double Take (showcasing the re-rendering), Send Revival (we could write about InPop's promotion for the album where they played a raw version of Revival to Industry executives and people couldn't figure out which band it was uptil the middle of the song - think I read this on Josh's site, not sure), Jekyll & Hyde (to showcase the hardness of the album), mebbe clips from the spanish albums. Of these, I think we can select a max of 3-4. Beyond that would be way too many for an article, IMO - but I don't know anything about the usage of song clips in WP. :) aJCfreak yAk 23:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out this article. I didn't find info about how many, but it might be helpful on how to upload the music files. If it was up to me, I would settle for "God Gave R&R", "Beyond Belief", "Jekyll & Hyde", and probably a slow one ("Send Revival", "No Doubt", etc.) Let's see what anyone else says. Thief12 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that I just checked... Articles like Dream Theater, Rush, and Megadeth have five sound clips. The two latter ones are already FA. Also, I think it would be able to put more clips in some of the album articles. That said, I would go with your initial hunch, but rounding it out this way: an old song (from the first two albums), one from the Greg Volz era, a praise one, "Beyond Belief", probably one from the 1995-2000 era, and one from Jekyll & Hyde. That's six, but that would be good and close to what you suggested I guess. Thief12 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been going through the links. I think the basic criterion unfulfilled by the Petra article is that too many contributors adding one sentence here and there - so it does not read much like a professional write-up. Reads more like a collection of individually cited statements. Needs comprehensive work. :( aJCfreak yAk 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, how do we workaround not having two Awards sections in the article? aJCfreak yAk 18:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving the lead

Hi all. I'm working on improving the lead. Currently, the lead does not offer much information of many of the achievements of Petra other than a few tenets of their long history. However, the lead should be a concise, short version of the entire article. Any help/comments would be appreciated. aJCfreak yAk 19:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It still needs some work, but I tried to organize the lead in three basic parts: 1) Introduction/Origins, 2) Musical style and sound, 3) Awards and recognitions, and 4) Retirement. Let's see how it works. Thief12 04:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Petra 197x-c.JPG

Image:Petra 197x-c.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added FUR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Petra 1979.jpg

Image:Petra 1979.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added FUR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Petra 2001 promo2.gif

Image:Petra 2001 promo2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added FUR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Petra 2003 new.jpg

Image:Petra 2003 new.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added FUR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Usage of Image:Petra no.jpg

If we wish to get this article to GA/FA status anytime, we should remove this image from the article. Fair Use images are not to be used to depict characters present within; we can use this cover image if we're talking about the cover itself - not to depict the new band members. So, we could either write (sourced!) comments about the cover and let the image be, or we could simply find another useable image to depict the newcomers. What shall we do? aJCfreak yAk 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The band - it or they ?

Hello all. This was raised as a minor point earlier, and it was settled that the band should be referred to as it, while we could use they to refer to the band members. However, there are several conflicting examples from existing FA-status band articles.

U2, are consistently referred to in the plural, throughout.
Megadeth, are referred to inconsistently as it, and in the plural
Metallica, are consistently referred to in the singular-form

What do we do? I am looking for consensus for going one-way or the other. Trying to refer to the band in the singular does present a few problems, because we generally refer to a band as them. So I'm thinking we could keep this discussion open for a few days (mebbe even a few weeks) and then see what is the outcome. aJCfreak yAk 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point. I change my vote to using "they" and "their" like the U2 article. →Wordbuilder (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "they" and "their", but that's an issue that can still arise when the article is recommended for GA/FA status. Thief12 (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if U2 are allowed to exist in the plural form and remain an FA, then I don't see why Petra can't be the same! :) aJCfreak yAk 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think U2 is not a valid comparison. They are a British band, while Petra is an American band. The treatment of collective nouns (such as the name of a band, team, or company) seems to differ between Americans and the British. Kirkman (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My vote is for "it" in any sentence where "it" refers to the words "Petra" or "band." Both Petra and "band" are singular words. Think about the grammar of using "they," a plural pronoun. Which sounds right: "Petra are great" or "Petra is great"? The answer is obviously the latter. Same thing with these examples: "The band are great" or "The band is great." Consequently, you need to use a singular pronoun ("it") to agree with the singular verb "is."

If you want to read more on this topic, try these articles: [1] [2]

(I think it would be fine to refer to use "they" in any sentence where "they" refers back to the word "bandmembers" or "members.") Kirkman (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't think of the British/American English differences, cos I didn't know. I'm an Indian, and we are taught the British English, learn and pick up American English from the movies that we watch. So it's a pretty messed-up English back home. :) So, I guess we'll go with the singular when referring to the band as an entity. I totally understood your reasons for stating this previously, just wanted to get a wider opinion/consensus, if possible. But I'd like to keep this discussion open for a few more days, if that's okay with you. Please don't mistake my intentions - I'm not fishing for reasons to call the band they. Just wondering if others have comments, too. :) aJCfreak yAk 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Song clips

Taking off from what is discussed on one of the above threads, we're exploring the idea of adding several Petra song clips to the article. Ajcfreak made some good suggestions, but I'll sum it up here for everyone to contribute.

Ajcfreak said "...Was thinking of any of the following - "God Gave Rock and Roll To You" (controversial song of that time), "Killing My Old Man" (again, controversial), "King of Kings" (shaping the modern praise genre), "Beyond Belief" (title track of their highest selling album), "Right Place" (change of sound with the line-up changes), a clip off of "Double Take" (showcasing the re-rendering), "Send Revival" (we could write about InPop's promotion for the album where they played a raw version of Revival to Industry executives and people couldn't figure out which band it was uptil the middle of the song - think I read this on Josh's site, not sure), "Jekyll & Hyde" (to showcase the hardness of the album), mebbe clips from the spanish albums."
Thief12 said "...I would go with your initial hunch, but rounding it out this way: an old song (from the first two albums), one from the Greg Volz era, a praise one, "Beyond Belief", probably one from the 1995-2000 era, and one from Jekyll & Hyde."

What do you all think? Thief12 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Am finally working on it. :) sorry it's so late. aJCfreak yAk 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Great additions. Just a word of warning, be careful to avoid POV/commentary in the captions. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sorry. I didn't realise. Thanks for the edit. Appreciate it. :) aJCfreak yAk 15:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, here are the song clips that we plan to put up.

Clips that have been made and included:

Backslidin' Blues (First album, Blues number)
More Power To Ya (First popularity era, Volz era)
King of Kings (First rock praise album, first gold album, album that almost entirely garnered them the deal at Word Records)

Clips in the works:

Beyond Belief (Title track off of their most popular album, first Grammy)
No Doubt (Title song off the first record with major personnel changes)
Send Revival (new sound with InPop)
Jekyll & Hyde (Rejuvenated sound)

Having said all that, is it necessary to show a glimpse of the monumental changes that Double Take did to their original recordings? As in, we could showcase a clip of Beyond Belief (the DT version) so that people would be able to compare and know the extent of differences between the originals and the DT versions. Also, would it be necessary to include a Spanish version of any of the songs already set to be clipped? That would mean that it has to be either King of Kings or Jekyll and Hyde.

Will wait for a consensus or a discussion on these last two points. The others, have been discussed about a year back - so going ahead with it. aJCfreak yAk 13:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"one of the first Christian blues songs"

I'm not too familiar with how all of this works, but the caption for the "Backsliding Blues" sample describes the song as "one of the first Christian blues songs." However, it was released in 1974. There were quite a few Christian blues performers who performed almost exclusively religious blues numbers decades earlier, particularly Blind Willie Johnson and Sister Rosetta Tharpe, and previously secular artists like Skip James and Son House had turned more (in James' case, exclusively) to religious songs during the Blues Revival some ten years prior to "Backsliding Blues." Describing a song as one of the first of a subgenre seems inappropriate given the fifty years or so of history preceding it. Maybe "one of the band's first Christian blues songs" would be more apt. LeonidasWSmiley (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Havend they also sung the song "Hallowed be thy Name" from Bill Ancira. (Petra Praise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.124.156 (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to the point made for Backslidin' Blues. I'll re-word the caption. With regard to Hallowed Be Thy Name, what's the point? I didn't get you - sorry. aJCfreak yAk 11:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

The following pictures in the article are about to be deleted:

I disputed the deletion and added a rationale for it, but if anyone knows a way to go around the policy (a legal one, of course :-) ) then feel free to add it. I believe that the article is much richer with those images and I don't know if there can be a way for us to get or find the licenses for them. Thief12 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Is "Musical Style" section needed?

While the information there is necessary, I'm not sure it needs to be split out of the main article. I think it's better placed within the "history" section and stylistic shifts noted as they occur within the chronology. I think that section just tends to bloat the article unnecessarily. Comments? GBrady (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansites

I notice that user:Steveund removed the fan links. He did so without explanation. Earlier today, an anonymous editor restored the links. I removed them again. And just a few moments ago another user:Helpfuldan Undid revision 360324546 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Undid vandalize to this page will report). I assure you it's not vandalism. Fan site links are not permitted as per WP:ELNO also known as WP:FANSITE. I will quote from the page:

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)

Please understand that it's not censorship or vandalism, it's a policy that is in place for all Wikipedia pages, not just Petra's. I'm not trying to limit access to important information, but to help the standardize Wikipedia articles I edit and watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, personal attacks, even in edit summaries, are not permitted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Before user:Steveund removed the fan links portion, the paged was tagged with template indicating that the fan sites should be removed or pared-back. That wasn't done. It's been there since June 2009. The fan sites will always be available through the edit history. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I think someone needs to listen to Bema Seat. This isn't about how long the links were attached to the article or not. It's about Wikipedia policy. Feel free to discuss it, but stop vandalizing and stop getting yourself banned. If a sufficient number of admins have to visit this article, it could be locked down for anonymous and new editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that was a fun waste of an hour. I just joined one of the fans sites, ThePetraZone.net. My account had to be approved. Once that was done, I posted a long message requesting understanding for what has happened to the fan sites section here, and a request to fans to improve this article. When I went back to look at it no more than thirty minutes later, the message had been deleted and my account had been revoked. This is what the world sees when Christians bicker. I doubt that the other editor will read this, but I'll post it anyhow: Romans 13:1–5 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive rewrite

As you might have noticed if you've been watching the page, I'm trying to go through this page and rewrite it from top to bottom. As has been mentioned several times here, the page has suffered from one-sentence-at-a-time additions over the course of six years. The writing doesn't flow, nor does it sound professional. My hope, as someone with professional journalism experience, is to take the current text and rework it into something that sounds good, as well as adding any additional information or history I can. If anyone has any ideas or suggestions, feel free to put them here, and I'll incorporate them into my edits. Given the upcoming reunion, I'd guess there will be a lot of interest in Petra, and it would be nice if such an influential band had a Wikipedia page fully attesting to that influence. Paa00a (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits on 2010-06-04, particularly the removal of citations, may need to be undone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Some references that were removed are those that describe which bands they sound like. This is the edit I'm making reference to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can always go back and add some citations in. My goal was to clean up both the intro section and the footnotes, which were (and probably still are) redundant and less helpful than they could have been. I tried to make sure that any citations I removed are supported elsewhere in the article, and I think the references to the five bands mentioned in the intro are all cited in the subsequent sections. 150.252.11.36 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC) -- Sorry, forgot to sign in first. Paa00a (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Records Suggestion

I think the rewrite is going well. I belive that we need to add more information after Beyond Belief on the ensuing albums. There are articles out there, we just need to find them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvs2kids (talk • contribs) 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Critical reception" section

This section needs to be significantly revised, retitled, or deleted altogether. It doesn't actually provide any info about the critical reception of Petra's work, it's really just a brief summary of their career, which has already been given in the history section. In fact, the critical reception of their various albums is given in that section, so this section could probably just be deleted; it's redundant.Spiritquest (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite retitled or deleted. The first two paragraphs are a bit weak but do comment on reception, although not critical reception. The third is a bit better. It should be cleaned-up, but that's what a few editors are doing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward deleting it, but I'm waiting to make any final decisions on that until the History section is finished, and we can see for sure whether there is any information that is useful for "Critical Reception." Bear with me, as I try to get to this when I can; sometimes life intervenes. Paa00a (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

where to add upcoming concerts?

Hi everyone! I'm new here. I didn't know where to place this info and I thought this was the right place to start. Petra and Guardian are playing a show on the 5th of February at Barquisimeto, Venezuela. The only place I found the info was at Jamie Rowe's official website. There's a link there that leads to the poster of the show. Petra's line up for the show is the same 4-piece as in 2005, you can see it in the poster. Feel free to publish this information in the article. If you need a bit more of info, please, let me know. Guardiansoldierofgod (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)GuardiansoldierofgodGuardiansoldierofgod (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not a place to publicize or advertize upcoming events but to comment on important encyclopedic information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Walter! By no means did I mean to pubicize or advertise the show, sorry if it sounded like it. So, should we add it as encyclopedic information once it has happened? Guardiansoldierofgod (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)GuardiansoldierofgodGuardiansoldierofgod (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Even mentioning it beforehand in an encyclopedic way would be fine. The issue is that it has to have some merit for inclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Walter. Well, if these can be considered interesting encyclopedic points, I'll write some here and if someone who has the experience of appropriate publishing here wants to use the info to add it on the article, here's what I consider important: 1. The first time two of the most important christian bands like Petra and Guardian play together in Venezuela (maybe South or Latin America). 2. Petra's line up will be the four-piece band as in 2005 featuring Schlitt as vocalist. 3. The show is considered special by Latin American audiences as both bands have been quite popular in the region and have even recorded albums in Spanish which have brought them closer to wider christian audiences. Guardiansoldierofgod (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)GuardiansoldierofgodGuardiansoldierofgod (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Guardian has played in South America many times. They even have a live album of a show there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes, they have. In fact, they played a show in the same city they will be this time about 7 years ago. Petra and II Guys From Petra have also played in South America.Guardiansoldierofgod (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Band member time-line

I like the information in the history section, but it might be more useful to add a graphic timeline the way that is done here: Delirious?#Band members timeline. I don't have time now, but could take a stab at it later in the week. The nice thing about it is that it would take up less space and be more informative. You can also adjust most of the parameters and overlay the albums with the artists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I entered Petra's Facebook today and in their band info they have got timelines in parentheses which state that John Schlitt and Greg X Volz are the singers for 2010 and 2011 since they are playing with two line-ups. So, both line-ups, that of 2005 and the "classic" one are considered active members of the band. Maybe someone with enough experience and authority could add that to the article timeline.Guardiansoldierofgod (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Band members chart and tables

I removed all the "BGV" listings in the chart because I feel they are both redundant (basically every member of the band was listed twice as a result) and not inclusive enough (if we are truly counting background vocals as a key part of the band, then we need to add all the studio guests who contributed background vocals, such as Jamie Rowe on Jekyll and Hyde). The same logic applies to adjusting Hartman's tenure with the band. Though he was a significant presence as a studio guitarist and songwriter, and even used in marketing for one album during his hiatus, he was still "just" a studio musician and songwriter. Keith Edwards, who contributed drums to multiple albums, is not listed, despite his significant contributions, as a member of the band, and rightly so. Chris Tomlin and Matt Redman, authors of many of the songs on Revival, are not considered members of the band, and again rightly so. Peter Furler had a bigger role on J&H than pretty much anybody in the band as the producer, drummer, background vocalist on the album. Yet he too is not a member of the band. So I removed Hartman from the albums between Wake Up Call and J&H, when he was not part of the full-time touring version of Petra. It's messy, obviously, because of the uniqueness of the situation, but I think that makes for 1. a fairer treatment of all the many part-time/studio/guest appearances on Petra albums over the decades, 2. a cleaner, more easily understandable chart, and 3. more consistent presentation of the tables.Paa00a (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, and I think your solution may be the best one. But consider that while Hartman was not touring, he still retained ownership of the band. Petra has been his band since the other original members left in the 70s. In addition to being guitarist and primary songwriter, he was also producer on most of the albums during his "touring retirement." Kirkman (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I entered Petra's Facebook ten days ago and in their band info they have got timelines in parentheses which state that John Schlitt and Greg X Volz are the singers for 2010 and 2011 since they are playing with two line-ups. So, both line-ups, that of 2005 and the "classic" one are considered active members of the band. Maybe someone with enough experience and authority could add that to the article timeline. Guardiansoldierofgod (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sold. For one, Petra's Facebook page is not administered by the band, to my knowledge, so it's not a reliable source. For two, the Schlitt-fronted version remains mostly inactive, reuniting every so often to do a festival, whereas the Volz-fronted version has an album that was just released and another one on the way, as well as plans to do a heavier festival/international touring schedule. John Schlit is currently much more active as a solo artist than as Petra's lead singer, so I can't in good conscience list him as an "active" part of Petra in the chart. Paa00a (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I was going to post here about the "country rock" dispute, but then I saw you added "arena rock" to the list of genres, and I think that's fair to include more genres that cover pieces of Petra's career. I'm not sure about "contemporary Christian music" though, as I consider that a broader genre into which "Christian rock" falls, akin to putting "rock" as a standalone genre in this same case. If a band is "Christian rock," then by default they are CCM. Paa00a (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The genres are from the All Music reference. I disagree that Christian rock makes you CCM. The distinction I would make, and I usually don't agree with All Music in relation to Christian bands but I do with Petra as they make the same distinction, is that CCM is for the most part the radio-friendly portion of the industry while Christian rock is fan-based. They make a clear distinction between the rock that they tended to play in concert and record and the ballads that were released to radio. As for country-rock, that was the sound of their first album and beyond when playing live. If you can find a reference for "classic rock", which I assume is what you would call Come and Join Us, the we should include it as an early genre. If you can find a genre to describe Washes Whiter Than, feel free to use that too. I'm in the middle of another genre war and thought the best thing to do would be to get references to settle this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

official web site

http://www.classicpetra.com/ is not their official site. It's just a site for the 2010/2011 world tour. It should not be in the Infobox as their official site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a site that includes news updates, eventual tour dates, band members, etc. (see: http://classicpetra.com/blog/) It is the official website of the version of Petra that is currently most active, i.e. the version whose members we are calling the active members. There's a lot of gray area with this because we are likely to have two versions of Petra performing on stage roughly simultaneously. I think we agree that the one actually recording an album and planning a full-fledged tour should be considered the active Petra (as opposed to the one that simply reunites a couple of times each year). If that's the case, then the infobox should, where practical, include information reflecting that. Since this more active version of Petra actually has an official website, it makes sense to me that we should list it for now. We can always change it if the PetraBand site actually puts up new information or if that version of the band starts touring consistently or begins recording an album, but until then, it seems clear that ClassicPetra.com is the website that will provide those interested in more information about the band the most current information about what the band is doing.Paa00a (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible Virus

hello, I noticed when I click On one of the links (the link that leads to: http://www.petraband.com/jekyllandhyde/index.html, it's the "Last official website" link) and My norton 360 blocked it saying it blocked a web attack "blackhole toolkit". I think if this is a virus, it needs to be removed! also, is it okay to remove threats like this if I say why in the Talk page? Computingdrummer (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As for removing links that you are sure of having malware of any kind, I would say yes, it would be ok for that as long as you mention it here or, at the very least, in the edit comments. But the site is up and running fine and I just connected to it from 2 different computers and neither showed any problems. Have scanned my computers for anything wrong and found nothing. The webpage loaded perfectly fine for me. I don't use Norton 360, but wondering if you had another page open at the time that showed that error or if something is already on your computer and caused it to redirect to another website. Either that or the site was hacked temporarily. It seems to be perfectly fine now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say do not remove the link. Norton 360 is known to have many false positive, as do most anti-malware tools. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I double checked it, and Norton did say it was the actual website... but you may be right walter about the false positive... anyway, I'm glad it is working as Petra is one of my favorites! Computingdrummer (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I am getting a redirect to: http://www.petra band.com/jekyllandhyde/index.html (inserted break as to prevent accedental clicking), does anyone know if you can "turn off" redirects in your browser? and how would I catch the thing that is doing this? Computingdrummer (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

See what you're saying now. The link is to http://www.petraband.com/ and in Chrome a warning is displayed:

www.petraband.com contains content from castload.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.

The page doesn't actually end up loading in Chrome or IE8. So I'm going to remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Beat the System

It may have had two different release dates. The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music indicates 1985 on p.692 and http://www.allmusic.com/album/beat-the-system-r91056 indicates 1985 as well. My CD and vinyl also indicate 1985. Not sure where the 1984 date came from. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Length

I liked Petra. I have a couple of their albums. They were an important band in the sub-genre of Christian Rock. However, it goes on forever. Before footnotes, this article is 75% longer than the article for U2. Nearly twice the space for a band that isn't half as well known? It would take a while, but someone who is not a star-eyed fan needs to edit this thing for length. It should be cut down by at least half. Anyone agree or interested? Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Having both of those articles on my watch list I can say that the U2 article has had a lot of smaller articles associated with it. This article has had no articles spun-off from it and other than the articles for specific band members and albums, there is no place for the information. U2, on the other hand, has

and so a lot of the information can be found outside of the main band article. This article is currently 100,903 bytes long while the U2 article is currently 92,367 bytes long and so it's not really that much longer.

The most important part to recognize is that this article was probably created by a few ardent fans while the U2 article, because of the more universal nature of the band, has had a lot more eyes on it. As a result no one has taken the time to edit out the chaff and fan cruft.

There is likely a lot that can be removed to make it a better article. I did that on the Greg X. Volz article a few days ago, but as I said, that takes time. If you're volunteering, I would be glad to watch to make sure too much isn't removed and help if requested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely with you how these things happen, Walter. Still, it is a seriously overlong article that could use some work, a premise with which you agree. I don't have the time this week, but might later. Perhaps someone who has more time will get started soon. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And as a hint to whomever starts to edit for length, the best place to start is to take most of the material surrounding the recording of albums and put it in the article for the album. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the material about recording albums could be funnelled into the album articles. Wikipedia:Article size discusses further issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)