Talk:BarlowGirl/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://music.yahoo.com/ar-310014-bio--Barlowgirl
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ENVPP1Zt?url=http://www.barlowgirl.com/news/2012/10/26/live-chat-monday-october-29 to http://www.barlowgirl.com/news/2012/10/26/live-chat-monday-october-29
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://neversilencelife.com/fast.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

BarlowGirl.com is live, but blank
In the past, I was aware that archive links on Wikipedia had a parameter to determine whether or not the link was live. Walter pointed me to that. The site BarlowGirl.com now has content, but it is a blank parking page. Can we add a parameter to archive links to indicate that the site is still active per se? --LABcrabs (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remove it as a dead link not pointing to the desired information. Per WP:EL: URLs can be "hijacked" or re-registered for a different purpose after a (domain name) registration expires.[9] Even if the URL seems to remain valid (it still "works"), if it no longer points to the desired information, then it needs to be handled as a dead link.  Royal broil  01:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about hijacking: the WHOIS confirms that the Barlow family extended the registration until December 7, 2026, so a total of 26 years since registering on December 7, 2000. The issue has more to do with the blank parking page (per the HTML) that erases all previous content. How should that be handled? Is there a special parameter to handle this situation? --LABcrabs (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A parked page, even if owned by the family, is no longer the desired information for an external link. I like how the external link goes to the Internet Archive for their former official website. I checked the documentation for the template (Webarchive). I see no way of linking to the current (parked) website or a reason to link to it.  Royal  broil  04:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph on Lady Gaga
Is this paragraph really needed? The sources are just a comment in opposition to her perceived immodesty juxtaposed against a tweet that she can sing well - two things that are HARDLY mutually exclusive in the way this article insinuates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.240.182 (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think it's not needed, feel free to be WP:BOLD and remove it. That was my take when it was added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, give yourself a pat on the back if you find it irrelevant. This is not the way to contest an edit that has prompted edit wars and a hostile attitude on this page. It's similar to what happened on the Lauren Daigle article recently. If you fail to see the relevance of my edits, then ask. The message BarlowGirl gave throughout its career, and one of the reasons they found much success, is a message of purity (not presented properly, but a purity message nevertheless) that opposed actions found in celebrities like Lady Gaga. Do not boldly remove anything, and do not make such suggestions, unless you are willing to tackle these points. Remember that a BarlowGirl employee was first to remove this information. --LABcrabs (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually is the way to contest an edit. Did you even read BOLD? We clearly have a third opinion offered from an uninvolved editor, but you can take it to an RfC. Who removed it first is immaterial, and don't call them your material friend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With a bit of reflection, the paragraph is WP:SYNTH and should not be included, but by all means, feel free to open it to a larger audience if you disagree with that assessment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In your self-serving revert you talk about "truth". The only truth is that this is SYNTH.
 * This comment is based on your defence for inclusion, which you subsequently deleted, but it remains unchanged. If you don't want to go through subjecting your essay to the opinion of others, don't, but don't included it in this article. Save it for your blog. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Text about Lady Gaga
The text about Lady Gaga was added on May 21, 2017 and while Walter and company did not support this change, they did not revert it either. It is only in the recent few days that the text was contested and entirely removed, without any explanation. I did restore an edited version just now, removing the prose, but I expect Walter and company to pounce on it and remove the mention entirely. The text, per my latest revision, is referenced and states the following:
 * The set list for the BarlowGirl and Superchick live tour in 2009 included a portion of "Just Dance" by Lady Gaga, as covered by Superchick. In 2016 and 2017, Lauren Barlow commented favorably on Lady Gaga's performances.

I believe that the text is justified because it is important information, as not many people are expecting BarlowGirl to endorse Lady Gaga. For example, the American Family Association Journal interviewed BarlowGirl in November/December 2004. AFA is a group that openly opposes homosexuality, among other values, so it's reasonable to believe that an artist being on good terms with AFA would share the organization's values. It's not just AFA, but also Billy Graham, Joyce Meyer, Secret Keeper Girl, The Revolution TV and several other like-minded ministries. Gaga is famous/infamous for her immodesty, sacrilegious songs like "Judas", the "Born This Way" movement, promoting promiscuity, and many other such values which BarlowGirl's platform historically opposed. If anyone does not realize the problem, I believe they are deceived.

Given this, I am having an RfC to determine whether or not the text should be present. I will allow Walter and company to fill in the "No, we should not add this" section. Thank you for your consideration. --LABcrabs (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's still unrelated to the subject and WP:OR. The first half relates to the band tangentially. Are we now going to lay responsibility on every opening act what the headlining act plays? it's just trivia. The second half is just WP:SYNTH that you want to imply something that does not actually exist. That's what the last RfC concluded as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a summary of your points above. Feel free to edit it. Out of interest, how acquainted are you with BarlowGirl, Superchick and other CCM performers? The last RfC did lead me to significantly alter the text about Lady Gaga, so as to make it more balanced. I'm hoping that more unbiased editors can share their thoughts. --LABcrabs (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had the option to add it to the table, but that's not how surveys are done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Commenting here to identify myself as the IP address who questioned the need for the lady gaga paragraph a week or so ago.

Apologies for my lack of formatting knowledge here - I am an avid WP reader, but typically only edit typos and the like. I look forward to learning more about editing in the coming months. Jason Johnson913 (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)