Talk:BarlowGirl/Archive 1

Philosophy
The philosophy part, unless it is all a quote, does not sound very neutral. This should be changed. Godlord2 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I came to this discussion page to see of anyone else picked up on that. It is very point-of-view. --Rachel Cakes 01:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the philosophy part should be removed, as that is not BarlowGirl's whole philosophy. Kind of silly to think that their entire philosophy revolves around their relationship with boys.  66.185.73.220 (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an important part of their message though. It shouldn't be removed. It should be expanded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, how can 3 people be quoted saying one thing. The context of how the quote was taken needs to be added. Did one of them say it in an interview and the others said 'Uhuh', was or a press release, or what? 212.67.168.234 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the above. As a band, they have gone on record with that. It was one of their marketing points. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

hey
i love your music!!! keep up the good christian outlook!! it's great to have someone like you 3 setting a good example!! thanks,cecily ashby
 * This isn't the band's website. This website provives info.  If you want Barlow Girl to know this, go to http://www.myspace.com/barlowgirl

"Not dating"
Hi, a question here. The article contains the phrase "the band has also taken a stand on not dating." I've heard this formulation used by US Evangelicals who have chosen to abstain from sex before marriage, but I'm curious about what exactly it means. I know that the people I know who have chosen to be abstinent before marriage do want to get married, and don't want to have someone arrange a marriage for them with a stranger, so I wonder what exactly "dating" is taken to mean in this context. Does it mean "having a one-on-one social encounter with someone with whom you have a potential romantic interest", which is how I would define it? Or does "dating" automatically imply a sexual encounter when used in this context?

On this note, there's language other language here that may be confusing to readers who are not familiar with the culture of conservative US evangelicals, such as: "Besides believing in abstinence and modesty..." "Abstinence" here pretty obviously means "abstinence from sex before marriage," but "modesty" is a bit more confusing. I'm assuming from context it means some variation of "sexual modesty" -- i.e. the women in the group do not dress or behave in such a way as to draw attention to themselves sexually. However, "modesty" of course does not necessarily have a meaning related to sexuality -- it could just mean that they don't wish to brag about or draw undue attention to themselves or their achievements. Anyway, this should all be made more clear in context.

I hope I haven't offended anyone with these questions. I just want to improve the article by using language in a way that would be accessible to everyone, not just to people who are US evangelical Chriistians. --Jfruh (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Great question. I don't have an official source, but I could point you in the right direction. I know they are big on modest dressing. Check out the lyrics for their song "Clothes". Also check out their song "Average Girl" talks about not dating, that God will provide the man for them. I think their official website has a section talking about their philosophy. They just overhauled their website, so the section might have been on their old design. Definitely check out the song "Barlow Girls" by Superchic[k] too.


 * While your checking out the lyrics, check out "Never Alone". Voted the #2 best lyrics for any song on my local Christian rock station. I anticipate this article potentially getting quite a few hits in the near future as "Never Alone" is currently being prepared for a mainstream radio release. So please do whatever you can to make this article unbiased so that Wikipedia's mainstream audience can understand BarlowGirl. BarlowGirl will be a household name in the U.S. if the song hits mainstream radio as big as it did on Christian radio.


 * I hope this helps! Royalbroil 23:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I recorded the quote about dating, and typed in the quote word for word from the quote read on the Weekend 22. RoyalbroilTalk  Contrib 03:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Modesty, in this context, is not drawing attention to themselves sexually, nor revealing themselves in a way that is improper. They are also very modest in the fact that tey do not brag about their acheivements, but rather give God all the glory. Their veiw on dating actually leans more toward courtship, where the father chooses the man that he thinks is right for you, and get to know each-other through letters, chaperoned visits with each-other, etc. this is dating to marry. They believe that God will choose the right man for them, they don't need to get their hearts broken again and again trying to choose on their own. hope this helps! User:Cocoblue 20:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the article to B-class standards, asnd removed the Wikify tag I added. Hope this helps. Hawker Typhoon 13:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How Can We Be Silent bonus DVD
The BarlowGirl article, as well as the one for How Can We Be Silent, states that the DVD contains all three of their music videos, which it doesn't. It only has "Never Alone" and "I Need You To Love Me", not "Grey". Also, though I don't know the exact length, it surely isn't 90 minutes of bonus footage. (I own this DVD.) WordyGirl90 13:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual purity vs. sexual abstinence
I changed sexual purity to sexual abstinence to make it more specific and a little less Christian POV. "Sexual purity" is way, way too broad and could mean a thousand different things. Sexual abstinence is alot more definable. CerealBabyMilk 23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps chastity would be OK? CerealBabyMilk 23:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Chastity is much better, but not conservative enough. Their stand was far more conservative than chastity. The word "Sexual" should definitely be removed. Some lyrics from their song "Average Girl": Chasing after boys is not my thing - See I'm waiting for a wedding ring - No more dating - I'm just waiting. The song advocates not dating. Please read the section above on "Not dating" - it's much clearer than what I just wrote. Royal broil  21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

 * Two anons have been having an edit war over the past week (diff) over content in the section. One uses a comment posted by an admin on their official forum to claim that no videos will be made for any songs from their current album (diff). Another claims to be an executive at their record label, and that they know first hand what will be happening (diff) I (User:Royalbroil) look at the WP:CRYSTAL policy and conclude neither should be included until they actually occur. The edit war also affects the album article How Can We Be Silent. Royal broil  13:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed. 'Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.' I'd leave it off until a press release or official notice. If it continues, make a request for semi-protection so only registered users can make edits. --Neon white 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia is not an advertising soapbox neither. If the information is relevant, wait until the event it describes becomes present/past tense and is verifiable. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove any unreliably sourced statements and ]]WP:NOR|original research]], and re-publish it once it is reliably sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamessugrono (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Rock Only?
The article says BarlowGirl's genre is Christian Rock, But I think their style goes beyond that.They definitely have Punk, Alternative Rock, and possibly some others. Should it be expanded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granpire Viking Man (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if you can cite it from a reliable source. A review of their music is often a good place to find critics view of their music. I did add Contemporary Christian Music (a broad category like Top 40 Christian music), since it should be non-controversial with their numerous #1 hits in the genre. Royal broil  04:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never seen an article citing sources for musical genres. Me personally, I think calling CCM a genre is crazy. There's Punk, Rap, Hardcore, Metal, even Heavy Metal and Punk rock CCM bands. It makes people think that Christian music is just old-fashioned music.Granpire Viking Man 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CCM is as much of a genre as Top 40 music is - it is composed of a variety of acts each within their own genre. Not really a genre but a collection of variable music types. The first C in CCM means "contemporary" (it's not old-fashioned as you probably understand).


 * How can you source some act's genre? WP:SOURCE is a POLICY, thus set in stone, requiring reliable sources to verify. Without sourcing you get edit wars with everyone stating their opinion. I've been watching the Travis McCoy article since it was started, and his genres are constantly changed by anons. There should be some music reviews that categorizes their sound - BarlowGirl is a well-known Christian group! Royal broil  20:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How's this?: http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2007/howcanwebesilent.html

Sounds like … the dramatic pop-metal of Evanescence with the modern pop/rock style of Kelly Clarkson, Avril Lavigne, and Krystal Meyers.

And I challenge you to find one article that cites its sources for musical genres. --Granpire Viking Man 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I decline your challenge because it's too difficult. I shouldn't be so strict - sometimes it's better to ignore all rules. I completely agree that BarlowGirl sounds like Evanescence, so both should be in the simular genres. The other 3 are pretty close, so go for it. I do content that their sound has numerous flavors, so the large category CCM should be appropriate. Royal broil  04:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that CCM would cover it, but that's not enough. Do you think that we should mark Evenascence or any other rock band just plain Mainstream music? Then why should we leave this article to just CCM?--Granpire Viking Man 23:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I wasn't clear. Evanescence is labeled Alternative Rock then so it should BarlowGirl. Kelly Clarkson is Pop, pop rock, R&B, rock, adult contemporary, and country. I would not call Barlowgirl R&B or country. So I suggest adding the following genres: Christian rock, alternative rock, rock, adult contemporary, and Contemporary Christian music. Royal broil  05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then what were you waiting for? : )--Granpire Viking Man 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus. Sounds like I have it. Royal broil  00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
At this point, I propose that the three pages on each member (Alyssa Barlow, Becca Barlow, and Lauren Barlow) be merged into a section of this article. As of now, those pages are too brief and with similar content which can be explained in a "Members" section in this article. Thief12 (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per note at WP:MUSICBIO. I've been thinking about this for a while. None are independently notable for their own work, just for the band.  Royal broil  03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but why don't you propose doing this for other bands' members?? Must everybody try to be so negative towards BG, especially in the "CCM" (Conservative or Commercially Christian Music) community? Geez, give the 'Girls a break. We should be encouraging them and wishing they become very well known so that their values can induce transformation amongst the masses.

Go BarlowGirl I hope you somehow break the 0-for-14 Doves jinx as Susan Lucci did @ Emmys. She did, now she works w/my bro Eddie Matos (aka the State Farm ad guy) on All My Children!!

Blessings.

Ramon Matos "The BarlowRocker" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.180.150 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an attack on the ladies in BarlowGirl, it's a neutral statement about the notability of the individual musicians. Their articles are small and could easily be contained in this article. There isn't anything specifically notable about any of the three individually, but as a whole, they are extremely notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I second what Walter said... nothing in my proposal is an attack on the group. I'm not proposing any information to be deleted, but simply an overhaul of that information to this article. I'm not browsing all of Wikipedia's articles on bands and band members to propose this on other article, but if I find one like this, I'll propose it as well. Like Walter posted, check the criteria here (WP:MUSICBIO) for "notable musicians". About your second comment, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion for any band/group, or values/religion. The information here isn't meant to "induce" anything, but just to be an encyclopedic reference to the band. Thief12 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a big fan of the band and I have most of their CDs. Like Walter and Thief said, there's no claim of independent notability (using the Wikipedia standards that I mentioned above) of any of the Barlow sisters by themselves. As a group they are highly notable and awesome IMHO. I'm a member of the CCM / Christian music Wikiproject because of bands like them. They are not singled out; members of other bands rarely have articles except if they're major players in multiple bands. I like to thing of the sister's values as sung by Superchick in the song "BarlowGirl".  Royal broil  02:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A week after the proposal, and with no apparent opposition, I will be merging the articles in the following hour or so. Thanks all for the comments. Thief12 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Dating quote
Why do you keep changing the quote on the BarlowGirl page? It is not an accurate quotation from BarlowGirl and I have been attempting to remove it. The listed sources do not state the quotation, nor are they acceptable references. The website that you listed does not mention the supposed quotation at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.231.205 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference is http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Barlow-Girl-Biography/6EF557376A10013E48256F0A0005E6A9 and it should be http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/BarlowGirl-Biography/2A79975EA934D67448256E9B000A21C0 It apparently moved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not yet disbanded
I see a post on their official website that they are doing a last show for their fans. No date was listed but it seems very unlikely that they will be a band in 2013. Why not put their date ending in 2012 since it is announced and expand the lead to include that they are retiring after a final concert?  Royal broil  00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They have implied that it will be a web show.
 * Since they have not stated that they are finished and they are still performing, it is not accurate to indicate that they are already disbanded. It would give the wrong impression to readers who arrive that they have missed that final concert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And they may release a final album or EP with the music they were working on at the time of their revelation. It could be before or after their final show. If after, they would still be together until the album was released. If before, it could push that final show back to 2013. This is no different that David Crowder Band who performed their final show in January and released their album after that. We kept them as active even though they were not touring and technically no longer together. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points, I'm glad we had this discussion.  Royal broil  00:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on BarlowGirl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011203113/http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/notyouraveragegirls.php to http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/notyouraveragegirls.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070823055443/http://www.positivelyfeminine.org:80/spiritual/ah/alyssabarlow.htm to http://www.positivelyfeminine.org/spiritual/ah/alyssabarlow.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on BarlowGirl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011203113/http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/notyouraveragegirls.php to http://www.thehomeschoolmagazine.com/How_To_Homeschool/articles/notyouraveragegirls.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on BarlowGirl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329035843/http://www.bigshinyplanet.com/UPvol1.php to http://www.bigshinyplanet.com/UPvol1.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

BarlowGirl's statements
I am posting verbatim the info that people keep removing from the article.


 * These claims have been questioned by fans following Lauren Barlow's endorsement of Beyoncé as a potential President of the United States in 2013 and of Lady Gaga as a singer in 2016. Gaga is known for songs such as "LoveGame", which uses the euphemism "disco stick" to describe male genitalia, and "Judas", which was described by Matthew Perpetua from Rolling Stone as "bound to offend some Christians for its irreverent and highly sexualized take on Jesus Christ".

I want BarlowGirl's hypocrisy to be exposed. Their so-called purity stance was pretentious and false. I strongly believe that BarlowGirl just did music for the money, not for Jesus Christ. I am tired of people having a biased point of view about BarlowGirl that does not reflect reality. Please provide me with some insight on how I can present this valid point of view. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 09:46, November 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Please step off your high-horse for a moment.
 * This is an encylopedia.
 * Let's start with, which removed. Your edit summary reads, in part, "It should be pointed out on this page that this millionaire CCM band is a hypocrite." You claim that they're a "millionaire CCM band". Do you have any proof of that or are you simply being rhetorical and attempting to be inflammatory to curry favour?
 * Second, your claim that anyone in the band are hypocritical. Because they possibly prefer a musician over the other choices available in 2013 doesn't make her a hypocrite. It could be that she was being ironic. It could be that she was speaking to the dearth of good candidates at the time. It could be that she honestly held that position despite the singer's lyrical content. Your claims are entirely WP:OR.
 * then you go into slightly more detail on my talk page where you, again rhetorical I trust, refer to them as "", among other unsupported claims. That they advocated for a position of abstinence until marriage does not mean that they cannot comment a person's supposed candidacy for president. To conflate the two issues is ignorant. It's like saying that all people who live in Las Vegas are in favour of hockey becoming the national sport of the United Stated because there is an HNL franchise opening there soon. The two ideas to not follow each other. One can comment on things in the United States without having cross-hairs place between their shoulders, which is what you're doing. That's known as freedom of speech, and in the United States, it's a constitutional right. The only right you have on Wikipedia is to follow the five pillars, which includes verifiability, and you've failed at that and simply synthesized ideas in a way that shows original research. None of that flies here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, November 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue with that is that Alyssa *left* Twitter after being exposed so many times for her « "Run The World" is the appropriate song », "Bruno Mars killed it" and other such vile comments. Lauren shamelessly follows Lady Gaga, one of the most blasphemous artists, on Twitter. Let's not forget The Beatles, their idol. It doesn't add up, and people deserve to know the truth instead of reading a biased article that paints the Barlows as supposedly holy. If you need more sources, I can cite an e-mail sent by the family that simply confirms their apathy. I made an hour-long video with lots of evidence on BG's worldly compromise. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:57, November 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to start by clarifying that and  are the same editor. While editing with multiple accounts is permitted, there are certain things that must be done according to WP:ALTACCN, which have not been done. I trust that this has been done in innocence, or possibly ignorance, rather than out of a malicious attempt to ignore the rules or in an attempt to deceive. Editing with multiple accounts like this makes it seems as though multiple editors have similar opinions about a subject, when that's not the case. To be clear, we are dealing with the concerns of only one editor using two different accounts.
 * Now to continue the discussion, please provide some reliable sources. And please drop the innuendo and claims of guilt by association. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, November 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having used both my True Tech Talk Time and LABcrab accounts, inadvertently, on a non-tech article. As far as innuendo goes, I'm not sure what you mean. By Alyssa being exposed, I mean that the facts of the matter were brought to the table. There was the merch sale that BG ran from December 2012 to January 2014, a quest for profit without offering any form of ministry. During their "Christian" merch sale, they endorse these sinful artists despite the "positive" messages ("don't conform", "purity", etc.) said when the band played. I simply am one voice that has valid concerns, yet I sense that very few people wish to examine the facts, despite the band grossing over $30 million in income under the guise of being good role models. Dial-the-Truth Ministries and Good Fight Ministries are just some of the groups that call out CCM for compromising. I wish that studies and accountability for Christian musicians would be better prioritized. --LABcrabs (talk) 07:41, November 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. This merch sale was good stewardship. They had announced that they were done as a band and they had merchandise. If they had thrown it all away you likely would have complained that they were wasteful. If you hadn't I would have.
 * As for any sales numbers, I'll point you to citation needed.
 * As for "sinful artists", Romans 3:23.
 * As for ministries that openly fight against Christians in the music industry, Matthew 7:1-6.
 * Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, November 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * The proposed content doesn't belong per Neutral point of view (specially WP:WEIGHT), and Biographies of living persons.  Royal broil  08:12, November 13, 2016 (UTC)
 * The content has been rephrased so that BarlowGirl's musical influences are listed neutrally in a paragraph, after which another paragraph raises concerns regarding said influences. Please message me on my talk page if there are any concerns with this. When it's the band members' own comments that praise secular artists since the band's formation, it's fair game to list these artists who have influenced BG's music and philosophies, especially after BarlowGirl kept pushing Romans 12:2 and "Don't conform" as a marketing slogan. This seems very similar to the Jonas Brothers, save that not one BarlowGirl is married. I hope this clarifies matters and that further conflicts can be avoided. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:21, November 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * You are free to post your opinions on a blog, but they are not appropriate for the article. Instaurare (talk) 05:06, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted and I have requested page protection because you just don't get it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * This is insane and just proof that you'll defend this "Christian" artist, no matter what the facts state. Musical influences should be stated. Feel free to suggest changes, but to remove the entire text outright (including their known support for The Beatles and even playing songs in concert) is wrong and unethical on your behalf. The Beatles being an influence on BarlowGirl is a fact that should be clearly stated. Instead, you remove it. I've been a great supporter of the band for nearly ten years, but at one point, enough is enough. I'm requesting a third opinion on this. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:43, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Your opening sentiment is correct, this is insane. That you'll take any excuse to try to publicly shame a musician for liking a musician's ideas is insane. I see you didn't bother to read the passage in Matthew that I quoted. Your references are copyright violations and are somehow trying to indicate that they are doing wrong by your standards. Yet Jesus constantly met with non Jews, which raised the ire of the leaders of the faith. Your instance on imposing a dualism (sacred vs. secular) and implying certain music is appropriate for a Christian to listen to or perform is the main problem here, not that the ladies are influenced by or like that music. Music is music. It is the people who perform it who bring glory to God through the performance of the music. Imagine if Beyoncé were to perform "Amazing Grace". Explain how that were to be God-honouring. What if Katy Perry were to have been influenced by hymns? Would that make her music more palatable to you? And I'm sure that Cliff Barrows listened to and performed non-sacred music. I'm surprised that you didn't dig into what restaurants these young women ate at since I'm sure that not always eating Christian food from a Christian restaurant must make your list of prohibitions. Where did they buy their clothes? Their fuel? Their vehicles, instruments, stationary or anything else? Instead, you focus on what you personally think should be sacred and in ways that think they should be considered sacred. You clearly have too much time on your hands. Use it to advanced the kingdom of God rather than tearing down others.

The fact that you still don't understand that your essays violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COPYRIGHT are further problems that those uninitiated in your fundamentalist mentality will understand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * The recent restoration of some of the content is problematic. The actual quote is "We grew up on ‘50s and ‘60s music. But the vocal harmonies of the Beatles and The Mamas and the Papas have really influenced us." That does not equate to "counts 50s and 60s music as its main musical influence. The band's favorite artists are The Beatles and The Mamas & the Papas." In other words, just because they listened to music of a specific era does not mean it influences their current musical output. Also, enjoying the "vocal harmonies" of two bands does not mean that they are their "favorite".
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRWfogit7pk is a copyright violation and cannot be linked to as a source (see WP:COPYVIOEL). The second video is a one-time private performance and not a concert performance and there were more people singing than the band. That they performed the songs once should mean that the phrase should change from "In concert, BarlowGirl covered" to "In concert, BarlowGirl have covered". The verb tense makes it appear as though it was a regular occurrence and than cannot be inferred from a one-time recording.
 * What does their running of a store to sell their merchandise have to do with anything? The phrase "while the band was running an online store named BarlowGirl Merch" should be removed as it's not relevant. They did not praise the work of Beyoncé. The first tweet is a reference to an appropriate song for a specific occasion. The second doesn't discuss the artist's work only that she would make a good candidate for the American presidency, and based on the dearth of good candidates in the 2016 election, I think she was onto something. Should be removed.
 * No indication that "Bruno Mars killed it" means that they enjoyed the performance, only that he gave a good performance. It could be a professional opinion. The last sentence is well-crafted and well referenced. My proposal to replace that would be:
 * BarlowGirl counts 50s and 60s music, including the Beatles and the Mamas & the Papas, among their musical influences. Individual members have also commented favorably on mainstream musicians Beyoncé], [[Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga.
 * While this version removes the last sentence, it retains mentions of the mainstream artists partially intact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the content in the above paragraph is appropriately sourced, except maybe the first sentence, which would need rephrasing. Instaurare (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you see what was added that I'm proposing to replace? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Walter and Instaurare. I did read the Matthew 7:1-6 Scripture, recently and just now. If we look at just verse 2, that's precisely what's happening with BarlowGirl: the sisters established judgments and measures, and they're now being judged and measured accordingly. Do you recall how they pushed their theme verses, Romans 12:2 and 1 Peter 2:9, to fans? That's why they are now being examined to see to what extent they are "not conformed to this world" and "out of darkness".
 * What does all of this have to do with Wikipedia? It has to do with reporting on the subject (BarlowGirl in this case) in a fair and comprehensive manner. If BG's beliefs significantly changed, which is what one user has suggested by removing the Purity section wholesale, these changes should be noted in the article. Lauren's Beyoncé tweet was made on January 21, 2013 during the second inauguration of Barack Obama, so she applauded not only Beyoncé, but also Barack Obama. This is despite claiming in December 2008 on Never Silence Life that he needs "a change of heart towards the issue of abortion." In BG's October 2012 final chat (22:10), the band compared the 2012 election to a football game. Lauren said "It's not safe to get political!" BG gave no suggestions, not even "vote pro-life". I'm fine with them concealing their vote, but I find it unethical for them to applaud Obama despite earlier claims of being neutral and, even earlier, that Obama's heart must change.
 * As far as Bruno is concerned, who by the way was also praised by Chris Tomlin and MercyMe, both Lauren and Alyssa hummed to "Just the Way You Are" in 2011 and 2013 respectively; Lauren used the song title subtly in her Tozer book, while Alyssa tweeted "you're amazing just the way you are" to a fan. BG has a song called "Mirror"; well, so does Bruno, featured on Lil Wayne's "Mirror" in a blasphemous music video. Lady Gaga shows blasphemy too in her "Judas" song and music video. Do the Barlow sisters even bother checking what their favourite artists sing about? Do they even care? I wonder what they think about Bruno and Gaga's upcoming Victoria's Secret Fashion Show performance on December 5, 2016. BG sang "Mirror" about true godly inner beauty; the Fashion Show says the opposite.
 * Now, to finally comment on Walter's musical influences paragraph suggestion, I am fine with this format as long as 1. it mentions how BG covered The Beatles (the two video clips count as fair dealing; no free alternative is available; also, 2012 concert footage and the final chat interview has BG singing "I Will") and perhaps Lauren Barlow naming her dog "Penny Lane"; and 2. it is amended to explain the significance of this. For the latter, simply adding one sentence with a citation can do the trick: for example, "These types of influences have raised concerns among the evangelical community, including Good Fight Ministries." Good Fight is a notable group that, like BarlowGirl, has left its mark among evangelicals. I hope that you understand these concerns. --LABcrabs (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point of the verse in Matthew you hypocrite. The point is that you are pointing out their faults when you have more of your own. There's no nice way to say this: shut up.
 * And to the final paragraph: you have no grounds on which to demand anything. There is no proof that they regularly performed mainstream music. If they had, and it was important to the media that covered it, they would have written about it. What we have is a fundamentalist nut job who is making things up to make it seem as though these ladies are somehow evil. That nonsense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Walter, you're not acting much better than LabCrabs/TTTT. Stick to the article and avoid getting into pointless arguments. Instaurare (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I have been sticking to the article. LabCrabs has been sticking to his rhetoric and not backing the content with fact. There's no reason to discuss that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will say that Walter did great work on some articles that I do enjoy, such as ZOEgirl. I think we are all sticking to our guns, so to speak, at this point. I don't wish to argue much further. "If I Fell" was a regular piece serving as a prelude/segue to "Our Worlds Collide" during "Love & War" era tours, so BG must've worked it into their set. It's seen in at least eight different videos on YouTube. "I Will" has at least three recordings: that 2008 one linked above, plus a 2012 outdoor concert and a 2012 indoor final chat, at the very least. These are absolutely not pointless arguments. I believe in sharing the truth on the matter. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a pacifist, I don't own a gun to which I can stick. There's no indication (read: WP:V or WP:V) that any piece served as a prelude or segue to any other pieces. I too believe in the truth, but the project doesn't operate on WP:TRUTHINESS. The simple truth is you're pushing that particular website's view on the topic. I have assumed you have an association with it, but I'll save you the need to declare any potential affiliation or CoI with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Can I just point out that some of this discussion really isn't appropriate for Wikipedia? Comments such as "I want BarlowGirl's hypocrisy to be exposed" are exposing a bias towards editing this article which makes it hard to then claim a neutral point of view. Comments such as "you hypocrite" or "shut up" violate another of Wikipedia's core principles.

I would encourage editors to base their arguments around what sources actually say, not around what you want them to say. Original research has no place here. As this article is about living people, this article also must comply with the rules surrounding biographies of living people, which are very strict on the types of comments about BarlowGirl that are being made here on this talk page, and have been previously made in the article.

Find sources, read them, summarize them, and put them in the article. Remember that we're building an encyclopedia, not a blog. Bradv 14:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bradv. I would now like to clarify some misconceptions spread on this page:
 * There are clearly biased (and too biased, I might add) point of views being spread by a few Wikipedians around here. Whether it's the numbered IP (68.108.83.5) attempting to paint BarlowGirl in a more positive light (I have strong suspicions about who is behind that IP, but I will not discuss this right now) or dispute moderators such as Robert McClenon falsely claiming that I did not take proper dispute resolution steps, there is a clear bias to overlook BarlowGirl's sins and focus mainly on how mainstream media paints BarlowGirl. To conduct something as simple as an exegesis of BarlowGirl's words is frequently criticized, as can be clearly seen in this "BarlowGirl's statements" (which I call "hypocrisy") section and in edits on the main BarlowGirl page that remove useful information.
 * I have since found other means to share evidence about BarlowGirl that differs from mainstream media's goals. I still have a lot of questions regarding the band's occult imagery, recent lax stance on morality and much more.
 * There was a BarlowGirl video for "I Will" linked to in the "Musical style" section. It was removed without a valid explanation, simply claiming that it was "not one performed by the band." This is the earliest published recording of the band singing "I Will". It is on BG's official YouTube. Only 1m30s is spent singing The Beatles. Any copyright concerns should be addressed by YouTube, not Wikipedia. The video is nearly nine years old and has had no takedown or Content ID notice. This, and the numerous "If I Fell" covers, are notable to include as BG's musical influences.
 * While I'm at it, this video may be the Barlow sisters and the Schell sisters singing together, as there are seven women total and the date falls towards the end of Home for Christmas studio time. If this can be confirmed, which can be done by tweeting or 'gramming at the Barlows, it would only increase the notability of linking to said video. Please see my next point about Christmas for a further explanation.
 * Speaking of Home for Christmas, I overhauled that article today, both for personal reasons and to demonstrate that I have made many non-biased edits. I would like to point out that the numerous insults I have received on this talk page could easily deter Wikipedians like me from contributing. I chose to contribute nevertheless because I believe that people must be well-informed about the band. The Christmas CD article does name personalities (Billy Graham's ministry and Oprah Whitney's special) that used BarlowGirl's music. I did not point out the controversy behind them, but I believe this should be done (even if slightly) on the main BarlowGirl page. I will also provide additional comments ("Shell" versus "Schell", Samaritan's Purse, etc.) on the Christmas album's talk page.
 * I'd like to be able to add more quality contributions to Wikipedia, and I believe this is only possible if the environment remains friendly. I would like to see Wikipedians here to take the proper steps to ensure this. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of the content that was removed was removed for valid and explained reasons. That you didn't like those reasons or can't comprehend them are a completely other matter. The only way that you will be able to add quality content is if you keep the tinfoil hat off and stop finding conspiracies around every corner. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

BarlowGirl's statements (2017)
I looked at Walter Görlitz's suggestions and reincorporated the line about BarlowGirl (the individual sisters) admiring Beyoncé, Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga. It is now 2017 where once again, Lauren Barlow and her family spoke well of Lady Gaga's performance. I included Plugged In (a site that Lauren claims to consult before watching a movie) and LifeSiteNews (BG previously identified as pro-life) as sources that mention the controversy about these artists. This is presented from a balanced point of view. I do not wish to see whitewashing and censorship on this article. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still full of interpretation and WP:OR and innuendo. What does speaking well about a performance mean? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Walter! I am warning you to STOP reverting my edits! I'm fed up with it! Instead of fixing the so-called problems with my edits, you just remove them! It's supposedly interpretation and OR to just compare Quote A from BG with Quote B from BG? Also, where is the innuendo? There was none in my last article edit! Do you think that BarlowGirl is so wholesome and pure?


 * Here, you want proof that it matters to people? Here is Believers by Jeffery L. Sheler from the Penguin publisher: "BarlowGirl […] brunettes […] modestly dressed […] their radical stand against sex before marriage [ …] critical reflection on immodest dress […] repudiation of teen dating". Here is another one called Making Chastity Sexy: "Abstinence events often feature […] BarlowGirl, […] considered physically attractive." There's then Damaged Goods by Dianna Anderson from publisher Hachette: « "Barlow Girls," about young women who are dedicated to saving themselves. The lyrics […] hearkening back to the Victorian categorization of women as either virgin or w**** ». (bleep mine) There are many examples.


 * Maybe there would be less conflicts if BarlowGirl was actually honest about what it believed. Beyoncé, Bruno Mars and Lady Gaga have a view of sexuality that goes against the teachings of Christianity, but at least these artists are honest about it. With BarlowGirl, many fans today still believe that the sisters are still keeping their shirts and pants on until marriage. If that is so, why do they listen to a bunch of music that says to take off everything? I see many messages from them about this filth, but not a public word about purity, protecting prenatal persons or any other of their supposed commitment. No wonder Alyssa Barlow left Twitter! By the way, Lauren Barlow rejected my translations of her Inspired by Tozer book. I hope you all look at the facts. I was among the BarlowGirl fans for many years. I defended the band and its purity. Now, the sisters make it a big joke. --LABcrabs (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning. Now my turn to warn you. You're saying that musicians like music. There is nothing "impure' about that. The fact that the musicians they like may behave in ways that you do not appreciate is immaterial to the subject. What you are doing is WP:SYNTH and there is no fixing that. I hope you all look at the facts and can see that no RSes support your OR. If it were such a scandal it would be covered in Christian media at least, yet you're left using primary sources from the sisters that they are somehow "impure" or possibly "evil" in your eyes. WP:DROP it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * And I'm fine with that as well, as long as the "admiration" is commented on by a secondary source, not inferring comments left in tweets or performances via YouTube. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this dispute still ongoing? I haven't heard from the other participant. Thank you. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello -&#61;Troop&#61;- and Walter. Although I disagree with both of you to a certain extent, I agree with Troop that the secular artists need to be brought up. Another one that I've found, but I'm not too familiar with, is Hanson. As I added in the article, Alyssa admits that BarlowGirl's first song was inspired by "MMMBop". Here is another source where Lauren nods to the Beach Boys. Lauren also did not repent from naming her dog Penny Lane. The media largely sides with the interests of Warner Brothers and BarlowGirl, so even at those times where it mentions BG's secular influences, the media will typically put a positive spin to it. However, even the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette does admit: "Bart Millard drew fire for praising the Super Bowl halftime performance by Bruno Mars, a singer with suggestive lyrics." This was an issue with Chris Tomlin, too, but I don't recall mainstream media reporting on it. Nevertheless, it may be better to incorporate all three artists to provide some balance when citing Bruno as an influence or admiration for Alyssa and Lauren of BarlowGirl.
 * Honestly, I want to keep my distance from BarlowGirl's pages now because of the filth posted there. All three sisters remain single, despite their propaganda of "no more dating" and somehow finding a husband one day. Lauren rejected my Inspired by Tozer book translations but has no problem repeatedly praising the blasphemous Lady Gaga. I think that speaks volumes. To address Troop, if the theory you cite is true, why wouldn't the sisters clarify matters instead of allowing a big conflict to erupt? I hope we can find a solution where all of BarlowGirl's influences can fairly and correctly be listed. --LABcrabs (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But you read into every mention. For instance, they were not influenced by Hanson, their song simply sounded like it. Just because they comment favourable about one song by a musician (or a statement they have made) does not imply an endorsement of everything else engendered by that artist. That someone else wrote about the Millard incident is different than writing your opinion about it. And now it comes out that this is some sort of vendetta you have against Lauren for "rejected [your] Inspired by Tozer book translations". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to interrupt this chain of thought for a moment and say that some of the things you are saying LABcrabs, could be considered a breach of WP:BLP (which applies to talk pages as well as articles). Not only that but I think you guys are straying off topic. Remember: this isn't a place to discuss the band or each other's conduct, it's a place to discuss improvements for the article. Remember that the article has to be written from a neutral point of view and that regardless of your personal feelings about the band, article space isn't the place for righting any perceived wrongs that the band members may have done. Please focus on improving the article. Thanks. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is the band BarlowGirl treated like a living person? Shouldn't it be treated like a corporation, product, ideology or marketing gimmick? That seems more plausible. BarlowGirl is a band of feminists who lied about marriage and, as stated in books like Making Chastity Sexy, "use sex to sell abstinence". The incidents with BG praising secular artists go beyond a single instance. This isn't even just a few mishaps. It's a pattern where the band praises artists that they know go against their former platform. Could you imagine them keeping their reputation if they praised Gaga while BG worked in CCM?

Most "Christian" media outlets are about defending the CCM industry and other questionable doctrine, so don't count on them to report on Lauren rejecting my book translations. Apparently, we are supposed to believe that these women are "holy" and "pure", despite the lack of news about their faith and despite no marriage (let alone a biblical marriage) taking place. While I understand that ZOEgirl isn't perfect, the three women there are all married now and offer some insight on how their lives are doing. With BarlowGirl, it's a guessing game, but some people have concerns: believers, musicians, even scholars.

I've just added a paragraph with sources, dealing with Inhabited having problems with "that system" and "sucky music" after being asked by Fervent to release "Something more like BarlowGirl". That and the books cited above are just of the folks who are concerned. I also have a problem with when an individual who is financially backed by BarlowGirl removed the Purity section in this article. The Bruno Mars and MercyMe incident was covered in mainstream news. As for Beyoncé, Le'Andria Johnson and Mary Mary also got some heat for backing her. Likewise, for BG, this is a pattern rather than a one-off. Instead of letting an individual taint the article, I would add the artists and let people reach their own conclusions. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All bands with living people fall under WP:BLP.
 * If I hear you correctly, you're equating singlness with lack of sincerity of faith. So Rebeca St. James, who married at 33 is somehow on your blacklist as well. I assume that Rich Mullins, who decided not to marry is even worse off in your books. I'm glad I'm not in your sights.
 * Christian press write about things that will sell their publications. Most of what you have written about here is filled with conjecture and violates WP:NOR. Both BLP and WP:V require support for statements rather than pulling inference from a WP:PRIMARY source. That they comment positively on someone's music does not in any way imply that they support the lifestyle, life choices, diets, or even choices of transportation that the musician makes. It also does not imply that the person supporting the music is somehow to be considered to be equated in lifestyle to that individual. It means that the individual who commented on the other individual's music had something to say about that person's music. As a musician, that's fair game. Anything else is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will now suggest an edit because this is going around in circles. What we have is people from the entertainment industry and this belief that Lauren Barlow can supposedly watch Lady Gaga (and more similar artists) without any desire to behave like a prostitute. That sounds ridiculous. Would it need to be more clearly labelled as pornography before people see the problem? The world knows that Gaga's entertainment is mainly about sex. It's why Victoria's Secret got her on its show. Why don't the Barlows watch the VS Fashion Show, given that it features their favourite artists?
 * I am not familiar with Rich Mullins. As for St. James, I may not agree with everything she does, but at least she followed through with her purity pledge. I also understand that some women, like Gianna Jessen, are either to be single or awaiting a God-given husband. However, I don't expect BG and company to pull a Genesis 21:2 like Abraham and Sarah. Alyssa (in 2018), Becca and Beka in today's age are more at risk of pregnancy complications. Like Lauren, they are not focused on being biblical wives. When did BG recently do pro-life work or enjoy sound doctrine? Hint: never.
 * Here is my suggested edit: Individual members have also commented favorably on mainstream secular musicians Beyoncé,(Barlow, A. and L.) Bruno Mars(Barlow, A. and L.) and Lady Gaga.(Barlow, L.) Other Christian artists shared similar sentiments: Le'Andria Johnson and Mary Mary complimented Beyoncé,(Ex Ministies) while Chris Tomlin(Tomlin) and MercyMe(Pittsburgh) gave accolades to Bruno Mars. Some fans were supportive of the positive comments, while others believed that Christian artists should distance themselves from the works of these secular musicians.(Pittsburgh)
 * I believe this is the best way. Nothing is withheld and both sides are fairly represented. People can arrive to their own conclusions. Obviously, I will use numbered references instead of named ones. Please let me know what you think. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason it's going in circles is because you clearly don't understand the problem with this. I am as opposed to this as I was every previous statement because it's immaterial to anything. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * LABcrabs, you're welcome to create a 'Criticism' section for the article if you believe that you can correctly source quotations that criticise the band. If you can't source it or it doesn't conform to other policies then it's probably not suitable to add to the article. However I am inclined to agree with Walter, it doesn't seem to be relevant material for the article. Thanks. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am seriously questioning Walter's motive in reverting my edits, which was originally done by a WP:PAID IP contributor. I am aware of who that contributor is and I would like them to identify themselves. In any case, there was an ulterior motive in removing Lady Gaga as a musical influence and removing information about the purity pledges, which is why I want Lady Gaga reinstated as a minimum. I confronted Lauren Barlow on her Lady Gaga idolatry multiple times, which resulted in blocking and a refusal to comment. If the motive is pure, or even if it's something like wanting to "grow up", why not simply tell fans? I understand that with new promotions at Victoria's Secret lingerie and now Tiffany & Co. jewellery, she is marketing herself to newlyweds, but her past music ("Telephone", etc.) would suggest the opposite. I believe that those who invested in BarlowGirl through time, money and other means should know what is going on with the band, who is now departing from teachings like "dress modestly" and the Tozer devotionals. Please leave the Gaga info intact. There are enough sources and it is a significant change in the band's philosophy. --LABcrabs (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC) (True Tech Talk Time account was used by accident)
 * That's great because I've seriously questioned your motive for adding it since you started. I don't know who the paid contributor is, but you can be sure that your tenuous understanding of both logic and WP:RS is becoming laughable at best and problematic at worst.
 * The fact that you're so deeply and personally invested in what you call "Lady Gaga idolatry", and yet not a single other reliable author on the face of the plant can back you up is problematic. I have had enough. I think that, in the same vein as Lauren Barlow's blocking of you, it's time for a topic ban for you here. If you don't volunteer to do so, I will take this to the community and have it discussed. Are you willing to take a topic ban? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to take breaks on my own term, as I have already done. I am absolutely unwilling to have people dictate to me which topics I should discuss and for how long. The reason I mention Lauren's block is to show her unwillingness to answer simple questions: my forgotten fan mail in 2013, the Tozer book translations in 2015, the new beliefs she showed in 2016 and much more. It has no bearing on whether or not I should continue contributing to Wikipedia. Again, you share the opinion of BarlowGirl's paid interest. I believe that having an RfC that can examine the situation in a balanced matter is the best way to proceed. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still agree with Walter on this topic - the motive behind the changes in the article are problematic. I support none of the changes since May 1. All are either too much detail or pushing an anti-BG agenda. The content that you have suggested for the article - that BarlowGirl members are idolizing certain pop singers - fails WP:NPOV. I see problems with WP:YESPOV: it uses judgemental language, it's a fringe theory, etc. Comparing any artist against Lady Gaga can be a criticism (depending on the reader's opinion of her) but comparing any Christian singer to her is a HUGE criticism - so adding this requires a strong mainstream source - not a tweat without understanding the context of what Lauren liked about Lady's Gaga's performance. For all we know, Lauren might be only supportive that an empowered woman got to perform at Halftime of the Superbowl. Adding this type of content isn't an improvement to the article IMHO - it's pushing the reader toward an anti-BG conclusion. When I read these changes, I see A) Lauren supports Lady Gaga B) Lady Gaga is criticized by Christains C) BarlowGirl used to oppose people like Lady Gaga. Having this content in this order leads the reader directly to a synthesis that implies D) BarlowGirl are a bunch of hypocrites.  Royal broil  05:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Royalbroil, I would then encourage you to find a better way to present this information. Regardless of how you feel about it, the problem began when a WP:PAID contributor removed the content. If you wish to know Lauren's motives behind her support of Lady Gaga, feel free to ask her. In the meantime, A is true. B (you meant to say Christians) is true and C is true. Despite this, and after presenting these facts to many fans, many still believe that D is not true. It's best to let people arrive to their own conclusion, where they either support or oppose the D thesis. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No the editor simply reverted your SYNTH/NOR edit and there's nothing wrong with that. What you fail to see, and have failed to see it since the outset is that 'you are the problem not others. No one other than you wants to know what Lauren's motives are. You have done it again when write "let people arrive to their own conclusion". That's not what Wikipedia does. We take reliable, (usually) secondary sources to present information. Despite this, and after presenting these facts to you, to still insist on ignore SYNTH and NOR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The content don't belong so it shouldn't be displayed since it's a synthesis and POV. This is the whole point of the last several threads. There are at least 2 non-paid editors who are strongly disagreeing with the content. There is only one editor who wants the content. Consensus is in favor of removing the content.  Royal broil  01:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason you want the two sentences removed is because you want to push your narrative and the PAID EDITOR narrative, to paint BarlowGirl in the most positive light possible. I've done more than enough to adjust my sentences based on your suggestions. I've removed Alyssa and Rebecca from the claims because there is nothing recent (2017) from their behalf, despite the fact that they failed to reproach Lauren Barlow for her lewd behaviour. I've removed many artists (Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, etc.) from my text, based simply on the fact that there is nothing recent (again, 2017) from the Barlows about them. I've done my part, narrowed it down to Lauren Barlow and Lady Gaga, and this is still not good enough for you. It's as if you want to shout "AMEN!" to all the filth Gaga brings along and to the fact that Lauren Barlow never once reproached Gaga in recent years (since 2016) for doing any of this.

How ignorant can you be? This is a religious page, yet you treat it as if it's not. The fact is that I simply want to add 51 words that are pertinent to the article, yet we now have a dispute that is over 7,000 words long in order to try to convince me that the 51 words are OR and SYNTH. I've found a proper secondary source, yet this is still not enough for you. Even the wording that I use ("mixed reception" instead of "blasphemous", "hypersexualized", etc.) is very close to neutral, and if you want to change "immodest" to "improper", go ahead. What's it going to take? Does Lauren Barlow need to make a list of every single woman who is immodestly dressed before you understand the idea?

Let's go through your quotes, shall we?
 * "I know they are big on modest dressing." (Royalbroil)
 * "I'm a big fan of the band and I have most of their CDs." (Royalbroil)
 * « I like to thing [sic] of the sister's [sic] values as sung by Superchick in the song "BarlowGirl" [sic]. » (Royalbroil)
 * "It is an important part of their message though. It shouldn't be removed. It should be expanded." (Walter)
 * "As a band, they have gone on record with that. It was one of their marketing points." (Walter)

Well, there you go! The consensus here is that BarlowGirl once had a strong platform on values like purity and modesty. If you are still bent on convincing me that I have OR and SYNTH, please send me an audio or video message. In fact, I may send you such a message. I am tired of reading and writing text commentary. What the Barlows are doing is corporate paedophilia, and if you think I am exaggerating, you can read Alyssa's profanity on Instagram for yourself. It should be possible to express the problem with BarlowGirl in a similar way that Amy Grant, Everyday Sunday and Raze discuss these artists' controversies. --LABcrabs (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me what I do or don't want. I have clearly stated why the content should be removed until as suitable source can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)