Talk:Bethel Music

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bethel Music. 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/20150402142946/http://www.doveawards.com/the-44th-annual-gma-dove-awards-nominations-announced-today/ to http://www.doveawards.com/the-44th-annual-gma-dove-awards-nominations-announced-today/

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) 01:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bethel Music Collective Members
On Bethel Music's official page for their artist collective, I can't find any mention of either Joe Volk or Jerardo Paz. I have removed the names twice, but they keep reappearing. Joe Volk, according to my research, is a drummer for Bethel Music, but is not a member of the Collective. Since no other drummer is mentioned in the Members section, his name probably should not be mentioned, since, as far as I can tell, he's not an official member of Bethel Music. I cannot find any information on Jerardo Paz. If you would like to replace his name, please put in a citation so that everyone can know where the information is coming from.

Also, I feel that William Matthews should be stated under the 'Past' heading, since he is officially no longer a part of the collective according to a press release by Bethel Music (https://bethelmusic.com/press-releases/).

Thanks --MissSG (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
I added the POV template to the article due its none neutral tone. Which heavily relies on quotes from album reviews that say things like "This is an album that simply soars above the rest... Every track holds a different aspect of beauty...flawless" that clearly are not neutral. In order to remove the template, either discuss the POV here until a consensus is reached or edit the article in a way for it to be more neutral. If know one else re-writes it to be neutral, I eventually will or file a complaint if I am undermined from doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed this tag as well because you can add WP:NPOV if you feel it unbalanced. Feel free to file that complaint. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And you've restored it. I'll wait for your complaint to be filed then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have fun waiting. Its not a requirement that I "file a complaint." Whatever that means. Simply putting the template banner there and stating my reason in the talk page is enough. As the template page says "Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view." Which is exactly what I did. As far as your false accusation of drive by tagging, the template says "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." I brought up my concerns in the talk page and its clear as to why I think its a NPOV. So in no way does it qualify as drive by tagging. Also, its clear the tag should only be removed in cases where its not clear. Which it is. So once again, your the one in the wrong here. I'm pretty tired of having to endlessly explain my actions and constantly prove you wrong, just to be constantly threatened, talked down to, or ignored. It might be a good way for you to talk in circles to deflect from debating issues with the articles and to keep them being changed, but its rather irritating and violates the harassment rules. Which I can give you clear examples of your violation of. Including in this instance. Your allowed to disagree that the article isn't neutral, but that's where the discussion comes in. Reverting is just pushing your agenda though. Which clearly isn't how this works. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are no serious issues of NPOV except in your mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, how did that turn out? I guess it wasn't all "in my mind" after all. Not that there was anything wrong with discussing it in the first place even if it was. Especially since your the one that said to get a second opinion. I guess that was only a good route to take when you thought the second opinions would agree with you. Anyway, since its already decided that the quotes can improved on the other page and the ones here are written in the same exact bias way, since the page was written by the same exact bias author, I'm just going to do the same thing here eventually that I plan to do there. Since its the same exact issue and that we can all be spared this useless, trite conversation once and for all. That doesn't mean I'm saying anyone should shout up it or anything though. I'll leave that kind of thing to you. So, in the mean time feel free to throw another utterly useless, nonconstructive tantrum about my spelling or whatever if you want ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Insinuating something negative about Matthews?
This text:

"Bethel Music issued a press release announcing that they and longtime member William Matthews had agreed that William would no longer be a part of the Bethel Music Collective.[5][6] Just days later, it was announced that Sean Feucht would officially join the artist collective of Bethel Church."

reads to me as if it's implying that there was something negative about Matthews' departure, or that his departure and Feucht's inclusion were somehow related to each other. If the two facts aren't meant to be connected, I suggest changing the "just days later" phrasing. Inhumandecency (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Split article?
This article seems to be about two separate subjects, Bethel Music (a music label) and Bethel Music Collective (a musical ensemble). There's also mention of the "artist collective of Bethel Church," Whatever that is. Some artists mentioned in the article are Bethel Music artist but not in the Bethel Music Collective, but from how the article is written it's really not clear who is and who isn't, or what the difference is. For instance in the events and tours section is it the label or the musical ensemble that's touring? Record labels don't really tour, artists from labels do, but it's not necessary worthy of mention in an article about the label. The label and music collective are used interchangeably throughout the article in that way. What the company does that is worth mention is different from what the musical group does. The inclusion of events for both subjects are not automatically a given just because they are semi associated. Especially considering it's not clear which the article is about. Really, they are different topics, with their own subjects worth writing about, notability, etc. So they should just have separate articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. As long as someone other than you does so as you have shown a disdain for the subject in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's always great when someone throws out arguments like "you only care about this because you hate Christians." Not that it matters, but I'm pretty neutral on them and Christians in general. Although, I do a lot of defending of both when they come up. Importantly though, I keep my personal opinions and feelings out of my edits. Whatever the topic and if I'm positive or negative on it. Where as you clearly don't. You've repeatedly attacked me when I've edited Christian articles or done anything even slightly related to them. Like calling an AfD disingenuous, berating me for asking questions about reliable sourcing, etc etc, and that's only in the last couple of months. There's plenty of other examples going back multiple years. I'm not calling your motivations out on edits you do, because it's completely irrelevant and I assume good faith. I'd appreciate if you did the same. The important thing is that we agree the article is better split. I could really give a crap who does it or anything else outside of that. I wasn't going to do it anyway. Although, I might do it in the future if no one else does. In the meantime, I'm sure you have better things to do then write contemptuous messages. I have better things to do then read or respond to them. So, please stop with them now. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow. You are reading between the bytes here. Did I write "you only care about this because you hate Christians" here?
 * For the record, no, you're not at all neutral on them and Christians in general. You have a disdain for them. That has been evident in the way you attack them, their sources and their claims. If you were truly neutral, you wouldn't concern yourself with the articles. Yet you come back to them, focusing on the charismatic elements.
 * Your AfD on that topic was disingenuous though because you did not look for reliable sources correctly as defined in WP:BEFORE.
 * There are plenty of other examples going back multiple years.
 * I only call you out when you attack Christian subjects.
 * Yes, this article is probably better served by splitting so that we don't have a conflation of the two topics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz Btw, my question about the notability of Michelin stars where you went off had nothing to do with Christianity. So, your claim that those are the only articles you harass me on (like that would make it better somehow) is patently false. It's pretty clear you just have a chip on your shoulder, a grudge against me, and that Christian articles have nothing to do with it. Except that they are a convenient way to deflect from your repeated harassment. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not reading your self-serving essay. I monitor RSN and I read the question about Michelin stars and had formulated the response before I knew who had written about it. So if you think I'm harassing you, you're mistaken. The same cannot be said about you and charismatic Christian topics. I don't care about you, but I care about what you're trying to do to Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * More like your not reading it because you know your baseless, abusive accusations are wrong and you rather ignore anything that proves it. Sure you formulated the response before you knew who wrote it, but then you continued after that by going of that I wasn't accepting the consensus in an extremely backhanded way. When I had said I did and left it at that. Your two latest things are harassing also. If not, how much of that do you think is acceptable? None should be. There isn't any amount of calling someone disingenuous and disdainful that's OK. Especially since it's been a multi year, concerted thing with you. Christian articles or not.
 * Harassment defines harassment as repeated offensive behavior that intentionally targets a specific person. Which those things qualify as. It also says its done with the purpose of discourage the user from editing. Which was totally why you beggared me multiple times for asking questions. Same goes for your edit warring on the Bethel Church page, when I wanted to add back the criticism section and you wouldn't let me, but you where fine with someone else doing it. Along with splitting this article. Which where your fine, just not if I do it. None of those are to encourage editing and all of them are targeting. You also routinely edit war me and then make the changes I want, because your fine with what I want to do, but just don't want me to be the one making the changes. All of those things are 100% harassment. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re your charismatic article comment, I'd respond to it but you'd probably just go off that it's self serving. Which really goes to show your mentality and how one sided you are. It's cool if you make baseless accusations toward me, but if I respond it's just "Self serving." Whereas it's cool if you go off and write long, condescending messages. As if those don't serve you. Whatever. All you care about is being right and getting your way. I'm done with this conversation now. This should be about splitting the article. Not re-litigating your three year grudge and just as long harassing bad behavior. So please either don't respond or do it on my talk page. Personally, I'd prefer to just leave it at this and not deal with you again, ever, anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)