Talk:DC Talk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pictures

I would like to ask for pictures for Toby McKeehan, Michael Tait, and the Tait band. I know there was a good picture of Toby a while back, but it had copyright problems. I know that there is a perfectly fine picture of Kevin Max. So we don't need to worry about that. Maybe somebody who is a really good artist could draw a picture of them and put it up so it could be fair use. Just wanted to put that out there. Later!!! Chili14 (Talk) 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FA

I am going to get this article to FA status. Whoever wants to help me can gladly do so. Thank you very much.--Chili14 15:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 8 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[4]
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. blp=yes[5]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 06:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

GA failing

It's still quite a way from GA. Not a single reference, many sections could be folded back or removed (Both Awards sections, Members ect)

(The Bread 03:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Moved comment

Comment by 199.66.3.5 (It was formerly written on the article, but I moved it here..)


In 1989, the group released their self-titled debut album on ForeFront Records. They gained some crossover success when the "Heavenbound" music video received airplay on the BET network. Their follow-up album, Nu Thang (1990), also received attention for its hip hop/pop stylings (a la M.C. Hammer and Fresh Prince).

Something should be said here about their video titled (Rap, Rock, and Soul) that was released sometime around the time of Nu Thang.


Their third release, 1992's Free at Last, was a tremendous success, producing six Christian radio hits. It was notable for its innovative blending of musical genres, combining hip hop with pop, rock, and gospel.



--lovelaughterlife♥ (user|talk) 18:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


New Information?

Should new information be added about the tribute album "Freaked"? 149.166.135.170 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is already there.--Chili 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup?

This article needs cleanup, especially near the end. There's a bunch of "addendum" statements just cluttered on top of each other at the end but there are no transitions. I did add information about their Intermission album from 2000, but many other projects they participated in, such as Addicted to Jesus by Carman and Forefront's Birthday album are not mentioned. Bourgeoisdude 22:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Genres.

I felt the need to add Christian hip hop to the genre listing. Dc Talk is one of the foremost christian hip hop groups from the start. This is even mentioned in the christian hip hop page.

Mmy @ 65.189.245.127 11:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dctalk.jpg

Image:Dctalk.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dc Talk Solo.jpg

Image:Dc Talk Solo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi. I'm currently working on re-writing the entire article to conform to Wikipedia guidelines - including citing references, removing weasel words, removing content expressing personal opinions, etc. If anyone could help, I'd be glad. Thanks. -- aJCfreak yAk 09:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

been meaning to...i shall try at some point.... Bouncehoper 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Look forward to collaborating. aJCfreak yAk 09:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

yo! i cleaned and added to the solo stuff. is that ok?

also, i don't think the fan sites are necessary. we already have a ton of links just for the the guys themselves. Bouncehoper 03:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! It's heartening to see quite so many others involved in this. :) I'll be continuing to touch-up here and there, whenever I have got the time. Again, thanks to you and the other editors for the inputs. aJCfreak yAk 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I hope it helped a bit. Bouncehoper 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fan sites?

This is Wikipedia - an encyclopedia. As such, do we really require to list out fansites? If so, what criteria are we using to select which fansites to list? Anybody?? aJCfreak yAk 09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

i say let's list their personal ones. that's all. Bouncehoper 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to do list, good article

how long have those been up? i would think the article's looking lots better now... Bouncehoper 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okays. But with regard to the excessive usage of FU images, I think we should move the discography to another article and present just a listing of the albums here - much like what was recently done with Jars of Clay. This helps in promoting the article to GA/FA status, IMHO. aJCfreak yAk 07:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

what does FU mean? a new page for discography is a good idea. do you wanna do it or should i? Bouncehoper 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout that! FU = Fair Use. Images which are copyrighted, but are allowed for restricted use... About the Discography, I suggest that you go ahead and do it. Sorry, but currently I'm caught up with trying to clear terrible backlog at articles to be merged. I think I'll be down there for the next week or more. aJCfreak yAk 06:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ain't no thang, hon. i got it. also, what exactly is the issue with the fu images? too many how? like, there's only a certain number you can have on a page? Bouncehoper 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. There ain't no set limit. However, the Wiki-ness of an article comes down if too many FU images are included. This is esp true of a band like dc Talk cos the guys are still alive - so it should be relatively easy to snap totally free photos of them and them upload it. It's not against policies.... Simply frowned upon. Frowned upon greatly. Btw, I'm logging out now. And I won't be editing over the weekend. So any message would have to wait for me to reply till about 14.30 UTC Monday. :) Happy Discography-ing!!! aJCfreak yAk 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

is it good? and hey, way to be!!! on finding the caucatalk reference...that was a slippery one... Bouncehoper 16:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. Last time I re-worked the article, I simply couldn't find the reference. Somehow, dunno how, I found it this time. So chill.... :) aJCfreak yAk 16:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

w00t. don't know if we'll find the citations for the bet thing or the public enemy thing....but yay for the article looking better. :-D Bouncehoper 18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Needs Major Cleanup

I come to find this page and instead of getting good info, I get a fan page. Okay first off Jesus Freak Free at Last the Movie needs some prominance on the page. The movie was a big deal at the time it was advertised and then disapered only to come out direct to DVD.

Second as far as I know their name stands for Decent Christian Talk and also the place where the group formed. Using an attack site to defend is not the greatest source of reliable information to use.

Also this statement is just factually wrong - "After signing the recording contract with ForeFront, the group released their self-titled debut album in 1989. It was one of the first rap albums in the genre of Christian music"

And a section titled Creating Christian Rap is even more wrong. There were plenty of christian rap groups before DC Talk like 12th Tribe and PID, and Mike E and The G Rap Crew who while not as big had the rock rap sound before DC Talk incorporated it.

I'm not downplaying the signifigance of the group, because they were the next band, after Stryper, to make an impact in the mainstream, being overtly Christian. That is until POD came into the picture. But you have to put the group in the proper context. And if anyone remembers the period Newsboys were trying to gain mainstream exposure at the same time.

Also where is a controversy section as the Jesus Freak music video upset some Chrstian groups (CBN for example)?

And statements like these need to go - "The group's fourth album, Jesus Freak, was released in 1995, and it achieved the highest first week sales of any Christian release in history"

and

"Supernatural, released in 1998, was their last all-new studio album. Upon release, the album overtook Jesus Freak to set a new record for the highest first week sales for a Christian release."71.224.110.27 (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi 71.224.110.27... I agree that few of your points are valid. However, the Jesus Freak did set a record upon release. It is a fact obtained from the band's history from the band's own website, before the website was revamped a few months back. If you wish to know, you can check when I added this info in the article history - I added it with the appropriate reference. The same goes for Supernatural's record sales too. These records have since been broken, but they were record-breaking sales for a Christian record at that time. I believe in WP's ideals which state that we need not say that a band/group/album/person is great, but we can let the success of their artistic work/creations speak for themselves. Hence, these statements should stay in the article.
With regards to creating Christian Rap, it is not meant that the group actually created the Christian rap genre. However, they did help mould it in its early stages.
DC Talk is popularly believed to stand for Decent Christian Talk. However, this was a marketing technique utilised by Forefront so that people could differentiate this from the mainstream, secular rap that was out there - this was decent... this was Christian... but this was still talk!
As for their self-titled debut being one of the first Christian albums, I guess that's pure POV with no factual basis. Think that should go.
Please do not mistake my intentions - I mean no offense of any sort. :) And btw, what's the Jesus Freak movie that you're referring to? Ne'er heard of it. aJCfreak yAk 18:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind response, (I didn't find it offensive), I mean no insult to the band I just think it would better serve the band if we the page presented the facts more. I corrected my mistake, I meant Free at Last the movie not Jesus Freak the movie.
I think on the subject of Christian Rap it would better to mention that they did what you say, and that is helped propell the genre in Chrstian Music, not created it. I am by far no expert on the Rap, but I was into the genre at one point and had a couple albums. DOC (Disciples of Christ) was a big one for me, and they formed in 1987. And I remember the rap groups that worked with bands like Bride, Deliverance and Whitecross. Most of those rap groups came before DC Talk. For example I did a quick google search for PID and found their formation was in 1985 preceeding DC Talk by 4 years. Ironically they were signed to Forefront.
As for the name origin, I would like to see some proof. It's not that I dis-believe you but if there was a legit link or something that proved it, that in itself would be amazing. Chrstian Music is still a young industry that has a lot of secrets that would be interesting to uncover, and that comes more from my "historian" side because I like to know the backstory - Good or Bad.
But my bigger problem is that the only links are from sites that don't really source their information. The one site is an attack site, and I personally can't believe most of what these attack writers say because they have agendas other then factual information. If you don't know what I mean read the article sourced ([1]), or read [2] These people equate all Christian "ROCK" to mean exceptance of Adolf Hitler's vision. And on top of that the source they quote is another attack article.
Another problem is the other article ([3]) sourced proves one part of the equation, but just because they say it is marketing does it make it so without a direct quote from Eddie Degarmo? I don't think I can believe it yet.
Last thing on term of sales. I guess a better wording would work, mentioning when the record was acheived and who broke it would be better. And I found a link for you if you want to use it - [4]. The reason I brought up this point was because I have to question how big the sales were in comparrision to Stryper. I don't say that out of bias, but up to that point Stryper held the records for most album sales of a Christian band. And in terms of most popular Chrstian bands (Sales wise/Crossover wise) the order would go from, (dare I say) Kansas to Stryper to DC Talk (maybe Newsboys included in there) to POD, and then of course to Switchfoot.
And you have to also keep in mind that DC Talk and Newsboys were hurt by their strong Christian stance. I remember Toby Mac addressing the matter at Creation Festival saying there were things they wouldn't do to achieve bigger mainstream success because of their beliefs. Newsboys, at around the same time, refused to use women in bikinis in one of their videos because of their beliefs. Rotation on MTV, for example, was effected by non-conformity. And also remember MTV was notorious for banning Christian videos at the time, Tourniquet's "Ark of Suffering" being a big one. Michael Sweet's "Aint No Safe Way" getting banned and his questioning of it led to VH1 running a series on Christian Music saying it was inferior to mainstream music, happened at the same time DC Talk was becoming popular.
I must say thank you for the response and now you got me hankering to dig out my magazine collection to verify some of this info. I got some selfish reasons, I could explain if you really wanted to know, for not doing the editing myself but hopefully this will help you and others to better improve this article.71.224.110.27 (talk) 15:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the detailed reply. Currently, I don't have much time on my hands - my Wiki-ing is suffering majorly (it has been so for a few months). However, I will look into the issues raised. I've not looked too closely at the sites I used to source the claims in the article. If the site is an attack site, I'll remove the reference myself. Just give me some time. In the meantime, if any of the other editors come across this and decide to plunge in, please - just do it! Also, I'd much rather talk to a person - ever considered creating a username? That leads us to the inevitable question - why not edit the article yourself? Feel free to reply on my talk page if you consider this request irrelevant to dc Talk :) aJCfreak yAk 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alright I started doing some cleanup. I removed "Creating Christian Rap" because it is unfounded and organized the career section into a timeline presentation. I did it quick so the years could be off.

I also removed the line that said their debut album was the first Christian rap album, again this is completely wrong as their are others who came before them.

I think it would be fair to say they helped the Christian Rap/Hip Hop movement but they didn't create it.

I think the name origin section needs to be fleshed out. If their name was done for marketing then so be it, but I can remember that this was not the only reason for the name. I think Descent Christian Talk is right coming from the debut album song and dc standing for Washington DC but as for marketing I would like to know the truth and not from an attack article.

If there are any problems let me know, or of course do some editing.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It definitely looks a lot better now. I totally agree with not saying that they created Christian rap. But reg the origin of the name, it totally sounds like something the Christian music industry would do (call me biased, but... ). Since the information is not harmful, I guess we'll leave it that way until we find proper RS. What say? aJCfreak yAk 07:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I did some more work today. I put the music info in the music section and moved the reunion section to the music section. There was some info on a book in the reunion section so I added it to the book section. I think I got everything better organized and now there is a frame to work with. And so people know I didn't delete any other info other then the creating Christian Rap.
I think now we need a section on the Free at Last movie. It was a prety big deal at the time and I'll see if I can add that section at some point.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I think there should be more genre's listed like CCM pop/rock and Christian rap. Does anyone else agree?

Actually no. I addressed this subject on another page. Genre's themselves can not come from a viewpoint. It's like animals a dog is a dog, dog has no meaning then describing what the animal is. Rap is a style, or genre, of music. It is void of religion. If we started defining all styles a group plays by their viewpoints then we would have millions of styles. Go to Rage Against the Machine's page on wikipedia, do you see "Political" to any of the styles they play? Why not? They speak about political issues; Right? Naming the styles Christian groups play by their religion allows the double standard that exist to continue. And what double standard am I talking about? There are those that don't want Christian groups to be associated with a style because somehow it makes the style be dumbed down or some other nonsense argument.
And quickly on the subject of CCM, yes DC Talk can be put under the umbrella because it is the industry they work in. All this being said DC Talk is still a Christian group who plays Alternative Rock, Hip Hop and Rap in the CCM industry. Does this make more sense now?
That being said I'm not going to get into an editing war. I think it should changed but there needs to be a consensus on the subject.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I started this debate of genres and i'm not even included. This is crazy talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.146.211 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And where do we stop in sub grouping genres? Crazy Talk? Explain your side please.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics to validate the name-claim

Hi. I don't think we should be using websites which do not have the necessary copyrights as references for lyrics. I don't know much about copyrights and such, but AFAIK, this would definitely be a no-no in a Wikipedia article. aJCfreak yAk 13:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey that's fine with me, no big deal I just thought they should be referenced to prove validity. What would be an alright source to pull them from? I think we need them there to show the public perception of the initials meaning. I was correcting an edit someone made that said DC Talk stood for DA Cool Talk. I'm okay with them going away if needed, but just so there aren't any question about the name origin I think it would good to include the lyrics.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I understand WP policies, references from RS are required to source refutable claims. Quoting the lyrics of a top-selling Christian band might not really validate a refutable claim. I think, if we really wanna stick to WP policies, then we should reference the fact that the name actually does stand for Decent Christian rather than quoting lyrics (which are copyrighted) or referencing sources which cannot claim copyright to the lyrics they are displaying, OR, websites which have the copyrighted lyrics. :) But I think, for now, we can just leave the lyrics in there without referencing them. If copyright questions do arise, we can claim fair use, as we are using them to state that the group itself stated that their name was for Decent Christian Talk. What say? aJCfreak yAk 09:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the references. I wouldn't have had a problem if you changed it or anyone else. If they need to go that's fine also. Hope what I did works now.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiatus status

I think it's time to have some sort of discussion on the subject and a consensus on the subject of hiatus. It seems like lately we have people editing this section more then others. I honestly feel that the group should be treated just like other groups, such as Stryper. I understand that there is no statement from the band saying they have quit or retired, but isn't there a point where you have to say the group was active for a certain number of years and now they aren't active anymore? There was another group I came across on wiki, and unfortunately slipping my mind right now, that had a similar situation and there in-active years were not put up. Now that is not to say I'm in support of dumping the hiatus status, in fact I'm going to switch the page back till we reach a consensus on the subject. And that isn't to say my position is correct. Whatever the guidelines are on wiki is what should be followed. I just think we need to have something discussed here that will clarify the position that the editors of this page will be taking on the subject.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

- I've read interviews and Dc Talk is my FAVEORITE band ever so I wouldn't get it wrong when I say that they've broken up. You see they said they where on Hiatus in 2000 but in 2001 they anounced that they had quit but, Their have been rumors about a reunion album or tour. And just so someone stops changeing it my dad went to their first ofical concert in 1987 so they did not start in 1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.138.186 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great but we need a source to confirm the info. It's important to cite a reliable source or have a consensus on this page about the status of the band. OfficialDoughboy (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well in 2000 they said they where on hiatus but in 2001 they announced that they had broken up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.82.38 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great but we need an official link to point to so it can't be contested. Please provide one.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually. You need a reffrence saying they are on Hiatus still. I didn't see any reliable sorces saying they are active.And their first album was released in 1988 and they couldn't get a lable, Write all those songs and produce their album in the same year they started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.148.39 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you that I think they aren't on hiatus but this isn't about opinion. I said it before provide the source that they broke up.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Okay it seems that there are people that don't agree with the years on the page and hiatus status. That's great but we need to have references to refer to. DC Talk's self debut was released in 1989, I know because I own it, that's what the insert in the cassette tape says. Now I don't disagree that it could have been released in 1988 but please provide some info that refutes what some of us have known for almost 20 years. If someone disagrees with years maybe it would be better to discuss it here because I know when I looked around on the net myself Amazon was listing DC Talk's self debut having a release year of 1995[5] Original Release Date: January 10, 1995 So please discuss the changes here first because misinformation is out there, even from what appears as reliable sources.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Never go to amazon for information.They called underoath a pop rap band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.128.207 (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

They have a christmas song from there rappin days called Yo ho ho.We need to get some info on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.51.138 (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Refrence

I found a reference for the grammy awards but I do not know how to insert it!

Here it is! Grammy Award Website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiangamer7 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason for breaking up

dc Talk broke up because of the arguing going on in the van when Toby had his kids, or something like that. It was on the Faith and Fame on the gospel chanel. The K.O. King (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds childish. Are you sure? And could we have RS? aJCfreak yAk 12:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I watched the dc Talk Faith & Fame program but Toby said that it was because Kevin and Michael just wanted to branch out. --Christiangamer7 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll watch it again to make sure, but, I thought they said that after Toby got married he and the rest of the group started arguing and they decided to take a break. I will watch it again to make absolutly sure. The K.O. King (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

These sorts of things (that is to say the reason given publicly) are often part of the "politics of image / public relatons" game that bands (and others) play with the media. My dcT breakup theory has always been that, in addition to whatever interpersonal issues they developed after ten years, they all came from a hip hop background and were somewhat unsettled by their success after being remade into a rock band; they wanted to return to their roots. (This is why there will NEVER be a dc Talk reunion.) I can't cite it though, it's just a hunch. In the end, there is probably an element of truth to all the explanations given, and we can put foreward all of them as long as we are citing reliable sources. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

DantCM, I kinda agree with your hunch. I've always felt that Toby wanted to do more hip hop, while the others wanted to stay with a more Supernatural-istic sound. If you notice, after the hiatus/split, Toby's the one who's gona all rap/hip-hop. I've always felt that Toby was kinda left out when the band started doing more non-hip-hop oriented stuff, leading to arguments and differences of opinions. However, this is Wikipedia and not a place for opinions. Honestly speaking, it's not even a place where truth is gonna reign king. It's a place where we collate facts published by reliable sources, preferably from the print media, I guess. :) Until we could find some RS on that, we'd have to let this debate hang in the balance. aJCfreak yAk 08:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

dc Talk information add

Just wanted to add a song not currently listed in the DC Talk page and correct one piece of mis-information.

DC Talk did an awesome rendition of a song on an album, named Jesus, for the nationally televised Jesus mini-series. The song is a remake from that of a 60s group and the name of the song is Spirit in the Sky.

It would be great if someone could add that song to the wiki-page.

Also, the song on the Michael W. Smith, A Tribute to Rich Mullins, is named Save Me and the song is not performed by DC Talk, but is actually only performed by Kevin Max, a member of the former group DC Talk.

Please update this page. Thanks!

DudeZXT (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Dennis

The Rich Mullins mix up was fixed, but can you shaow a link for the song, "Spirit in the Sky"? --Christiangamer7 (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Spirit in the Sky Links

I searched the internet for: Music From And Inspired By Jesus The Epic Mini-Series and here is what I could find. It seems that there are a couple of different versions of the soundtrack and the version I have seems to be less popular. You can find the CD on common purchase websites if you use the title above, however..

http://www.gospelflava.com/reviews/jesusminiseries.html DudeZXT (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)DudeZXT

Rap/Rock

I deleted from the History section: "In fact, many music critics point to the title track, "Jesus Freak," as being an important moment in rock history, linking grunge and rapcore for the first time." I'm a DC Talk fan but this is a stretch even for me. Rock-rap has been linked from the beginnings of hip hop. See Walk This Way by Run DMC and Aerosmith in 1986. No, it's not grunge but Jesus Freak is not any more important because it's grunge+rap. Saying grunge+rap added to its popularity is fine. I would say anything more really needs some evidence of the music critics saying so.

I agree, Its not actually a first time, it would need a citation. Anthrax (American band) were one of the first--Casket56 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reunion

DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHEN THEY WILL START PERFORMING TOGETHER AGAIN???? I WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH IF SOMEBODY WOULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU!! Later!!! User:70.124.132.176 21:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No one knows if they will, as indicated in the Solo Efforts section. Dan, the CowMan 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
But do you hope they will? I do. Later!!! 152.163.100.196 15:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Kevin Max denied the existence of a reunion tour. Not positive, though... C$ 22:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC) NOOOOO. tobyMac is SOOOO much better solo than the group together ever was. Sorry, guys. No reunion tour for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.30.250 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC) WP:NPOV please. By the way, it's more preference about your taste in music, so don't criticize others for their choices. Good Day. Luna RainHowLCry 02:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Casting vote: move to DC Talk (band), and DC Talk is now a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Dc Talk → DC Talk — — Names should be capitalised as per WP:MOSTM — Nouse4aname (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: That should be DC Talk (band) as DC Talk is already a redirect to DC Talk (album). DC Talk could then be turned into a disam page, though with only two relevant articles it's probably not necessary. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The album was originally at DC Talk, but I moved it to DC Talk (album) to allow the proposed move, but adding the (band) dab is probably a good idea. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The problem here is that the article should bc called dc talk, with lowercase DC, but last I knew this was not allowed due to software limitations. The double-capitolised DC Talk is an old moniker, and hasn't been used since before Jesus Freak. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree: Per Dan, the CowMan. -- Noj r (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This has nothing to do with how the band styles their name. This is addressed by both WP:MOSTM and WP:NC, which state that abbreviations and names should be capitalised regardless of any stylistic preferences of the owner of the name. The fact that the band currently styles the name as dc talk is addressed in the opening sentence "DC Talk (styled as dc talk) is...". Nouse4aname (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • For examples and precedent, see Kiss (band) (styled as KISS), Blink-182 (styled as blink-182), Stellastarr (styled as stellarstarr*), Clouddead (styled as cLOUDDEAD), TheStart (styled as theSTART), etc... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. So many changes since I started here. Still disagree, but I guess it's a disagreement with policy. I see the rule, but not necessarily the need for the change. *sighs* Dan, the CowMan (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha, I was just about to voice my opposition to this policy as well. -- Noj r (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro Change Request RE the City reference

Before I made changes, I wanted to discuss it first. I know it is annoying when someone edits an important part of a page without first discussing it. I feel that the reference in the first sentence of this page to Lynchburg VA is confusing and not necessary. Technically, they formed in Lynchburg, yes, but they are all from different places. They have lived for most of their career in Nashville, TN. So right now, I feel that there should be no specific city listed in the intro. The details of where they are from can be sorted out later in the article/page. If the location they formed is mentioned prominently, then the place they have evolved and developed as a group should be mentioned even more prominently- that is, Nashville. I am a journalist who covers the music business. Thank you. Dougmac7 (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They're not from from Lynchburg, Virginia. They're from Nashville. However, it should be mentioned that they formed in Lynchburg. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Saying that they're from Lynchburg is like saying they're from DC - You are more correct to say that they don't have a particular geographic affiliation. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Come Together Now

The citation that's needed for the "Come Together Now" is that the trio reunited. I have no doubt that they sang together on the recording. That they were in the same room together at the very least. But to state that they reunited for a single that won't be touring is a bit far-fetched. I would consider them back together if they had a section where all three were performing together, otherwise, they did not reunite for the single. Does anyone have credits for the recording? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Free at Last

Again I'm not getting in an edit war. I'll be short and sweet, no statement like ""Free at Last" is considered to be one of the best Christian albums of all time." should be allowed on an encyclopedic article. I tried my best as compromise to find a list that would support the statement and could find none - http://www.listsofbests.com/list/2614/compare/GBrady http://greatestchristianalbums.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/1-only-visiting-this-planet-larry-norman/ Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music can be used but with a great deal of scrutiny, the little I've dealt with it and read it really glosses over artists in favor of opinion. It even gets genres wrong at times.

I'm not going to touch this part of the page, I'll let the original submitter make a final decision.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the original submitter, but I've added that it's number 9 in CCM presents: The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music. I'd say that makes it one of the best Christian albums of all time according to the expert in the field. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with OfficialDoughboy. More specifically, the statement ""Free at Last" is considered to be one of the best Christian albums of all time." does not comply with WP:ASSERT. In particular, please see the examples which involve The Beatles. Since WP:ASSERT is part of NPOV, and NPOV is a non-neogtiable cornerstone of Wikipedia, I will go ahead and change the article text to be compliant without waiting for further discusssion. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Love the new wording! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music

The article uses the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music as one of it's main references. However, no other identifying information is provided for this encyclopedia, and Amazon lists two different books with a title like that:

  • Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music (Recent Releases) (2002) by Mark Allan Powell
  • Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music: Pop, Rock, and Worship (2009) by Don Cusic

Does anybody have an idea which book is being referenced? Or could it be both? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this! (The clarification is in the References section of the article.) -- JTSchreiber (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You're most welcome. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Most popular Christian act

The actual phrase from EoCCM is "Two years from their founding, they were the most popular Christian act in the world, and three years later they had become the most popular overtly Christian act of all time." I too would argue that it should be "to date". p. 239. The recent edit, which I reverted, read "In 2002, the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music called DC Talk "the most popular overtly Christian act of all time."" First point is that this is a band or group, not solo artist. Second, I don't know what measure the editor was using to determine popularity. What I read above regarding Kansas (they were a mainstream band first and then a few members became Christian, but they never really considered themselves a Christian band), P.O.D. (how popular were they in Europe, Japan, and Latin America?), Switchfoot (they don't think they're a Christian band), etc. It carries quite a bit of POV, but it would be nice to qualify the statement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(1) Your edit comment said that my change "introduces an innaccuracy by making it a quote." Please state what the innaccuracy is.
(2) As far as DC Talk being a band rather than a solo artist, both the version I wrote and the version you brought back refer to DC Talk as the most popular "act". Since the word act hasn't changed, how can this be a reason for reverting my edit?
(3) While we don't know how the author of EoCCM determined popularity, the words "most popular" are the same in both my edit and the version you brought back. Again, how can this be a reason for reverting my edit when these words haven't changed?
The current wording is unacceptable, as it does not comply with the WP:ASSERT section of NPOV, which says:

When we want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to a person, organization, group of persons, or percentage of persons, and discuss the fact that they have this opinion, citing a reliable source for the fact that the person, organization, group or percentage of persons holds the particular opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made.

-- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Not all that I wrote was in reference to your addition.
The inaccuracy is that it's not just EoCCM that considers them to be one of the greatest bands. CCM Magazine concurs. There are several other sources which don't meet WP:V that also consider them to be the best Christian rap band. The EoCCM is no better and simply quoting it introduces POV.
Feel free to change it back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I brought it back.
There is an undue weight problem with the article as a whole in how it uses EoCCM more than sources like CCM Magazine, Rolling Stone, etc. The way to solve this would be to add more info from these other sources. Do you have the specifics about CCM calling DC Talk one of the greatest bands? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry no info on the CCM article. Too many articles over too many years to remember them all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the problem with CCM Magazine, it's CCM Magazine. It only deals with the pop side of christian music and has a bias toward that side. HM is the same way. In fact HM's Doug Van Pelt did a 100 greatest list and Jesus Freak made #49. The problem with these statements is the bias. You have to look at sales numbers and concert attendance to see how they compared to other acts when they were touring. Good luck with getting all that info. I was a teenager through the 90s and I know that they were popular but you could make some of the same arguments for Audio Adrenaline and Newsboys.
And standing back and looking at christian music as a whole you have to stack them up against Amy Grant, Stryper, POD and other overtly christian groups. Stryper and POD dominated MTV, something DC Talk didn't do. This isn't a criticism of DC Talk or their popularity but the fact to make a statement that any band is the most popular of all time takes a lot of proving.
I could see someone trying to construct a section defining their place in history but that is going to take a lot of work and you will have to work in how they fit into their period. I could see wording to the effect that they were the most well known acts in christian music in the from the mid 90s till the late 90s but beyond that you are going to have a tough time proving anymore. And to prove that is going to take a lot of work, christian music is not as well documented as it should be.
I would just stick to sales numbers as they are the most readily available and start researching those numbers versus other groups of the day.
And again EoCCM should be handled with a fine tooth comb. That book is so biased and wrong on a number of key facts that I just don't have any trust for the material. Sorry read enough previews of the book online to know to stay away from it.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
HM is Heavy Music (originally Heaven's Metal) so I don't see your point. The statement is Christian band so why wouldn't you consult authorities on Christian music? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
That's my point. HM covers one grouping of music, mainly the heavier side. CCM covers another grouping of music, mainly the pop side. Yes they are authorities on their given groupings but not as a whole, and they don't claim to be. HM doesn't rate DC Talk high on their lists, but CCM does, so who's right? It's an endless debate that proves nothing, because the lists are opinion. As a general rule I try to never say anything in the vein of most prolific or best of all time, or without some context. It's opinion.
EoCCM the main problem I have with the book is the book wants to cover all of christian music but gets a lot of facts wrong. Example the author thinks Grindcore is Death Metal, and that Thrash and Speed Metal are the same. It's a good start but needs a lot of revisions and full of a lot of opinion.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
OfficialDoughboy, I will deal with your comments point-by-point in the order you made them:
* You wrote, "You have to look at sales numbers and concert attendance to see how they compared to other acts when they were touring. Good luck with getting all that info." The fact that it's a lot of work to do that is probably not the main problem. Even if you did that work, it's probably origianl research by Wikipedia standards, and so the results of all the work would just get taken back out of the article.
* You wrote, "to make a statement that any band is the most popular of all time takes a lot of proving." I disagree. The sentence in the current DC Talk article is what Wikipedia calls a "fact about an opinion", and these are perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards. For more info on facts-about-opinions, see the block quote from WP:ASSERT above. Part of my argument here is that "most popular" is inherently vague. Does it mean number of tickets sold, dollar value of tickets sold, albums sold, radio air time for songs, broadcast time for videos, etc.? As a result, any statement of who is "most popular" will be an opinion, not a fact, regardless of whether someone has done lots of research or not. The question isn't whether the opinion is provable, but whether it's contained within a valid fact about an opinion by Wikipedia standards.
* You wrote, "I could see wording to the effect that they were the most well known acts in christian music in the from the mid 90s till the late 90s" Can you make it into a valid fact about an opinion? If not, it doesn't belong in the article.
* You wrote, "I would just stick to sales numbers as they are the most readily available...." By Wikipedia standards, that approach is acceptable but not required. Currently, I'm not convinced that the article should use sales figures only.
* You wrote, "Sorry read enough previews of the book [EoCCM] online to know to stay away from it." What kind of previews are these? Do they come from reliable sources as Wikipedia defines the term, or are they postings in discussion groups and customer reviews?
* You wrote, "HM doesn't rate DC Talk high on their lists, but CCM does, so who's right? It's an endless debate that proves nothing, because the lists are opinion." A perfectly acceptable way to handle this on Wikipedia is to list both, and phrase them as facts about opinions. Wikipedia doesn't try to say whose "right", just list opinions from prominent critics. And I will also point out that a lot of what happens in artistic fields like music is based on opinions, not facts. Is Casablanca a better movie than Plan 9 from Outer Space? The consensus among movie critics is that Casablanca is enormously better, with some calling Plan 9 the worst movie ever. In my opinion, this is certainly worth inclusion in Wikipedia, even though there is no objective way to determine which movie is "better". -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
My point is if there is sales data you list it in the article and let the numbers alone speak for themselves. For example you can go to Billboard and see their chart positions. There is some information floating around about ticket sales, hard to find, but that could be listed. You list that information on this page and the album pages. I wouldn't call that original research. My point was about comparison, if you find a reliable source and it says that DC Talk was the most sold tour during 1995 for any christian group and it had reliable data supporting the fact would it be wrong to include that? That was my point. I know that CCM used to have the industry magazine back in the early 1990s that covered these numbers. My point isn't to do original work but let what information is verifiable speak for itself.
You wrote - "I'm not convinced that the article should use sales figures only." I actually agree but look at what I'm saying, - use sales figures as they are most readily available. Christian music hasn't benefited from the same resources that it's mainstream counterpart does. Take for example Petra, Petra is one of the most significant bands in christian rock yet we don't have a complete history of them. When I say complete I mean reasons why members left (every member) year by year sales data, tour data, ticket data. There is no blame to lay at anyone but the truth is christian music history becomes limited when you apply the wikipedia standards. I don't have a problem with that, that's why I post here instead of get into edit wars. The problem still is verifiable information for christian music is very limited. That's why I said good luck with finding the information.
I'll give you a very good example: Saviour Machine. One of the most important things in their history is the fallout with their record label and the New Union club incident. But the problem is it's only documented on the net in one interview. Does that hold up to wikipedia standards? See the problem I have?
You asked "Can you make it into a valid fact about an opinion? If not, it doesn't belong in the article." My fault for not being more specific. Again like record sales data and concert data I can see you making a section that is built upon facts. From a period of 1993 till 1997 they dominated charts and were on a lot of magazine covers. I'm saying construct a section that states the facts and shows that they were a dominate force in the mid-90s in christian music by letting facts speak for themselves. They had a major impact on the industry. I know you can't just say that on the article it's need to be proven by facts. DC Talk does benefit from the fact that there is more verifiable data on them then a lot of other acts.
As for the question of where I got my info on EoCCM - http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Contemporary-Christian-Recent-Releases/dp/1565636791 You can look at a preview of the book there. Reading that, reading a lot of reviews, and like I pointed out from the preview that the guy doesn't understand the heavier acts he shows his hand as an authority on a finite space of christian music, mainly the pop side of chrstian music. So for him to say something like DC Talk was "the most popular overtly Christian act of all time" when the book was published after POD was big in the mainstream and sold more albums shows his bias. And that is taking into consideration the title of the book. I know why the book is being used, but that doesn't excuse using biased statements.
As for the lists, I think you have a valid point of inclusion. My point was that you have two authorities on christian music and they both place bands at different places of importance. Having their opinions in the lead is mis-leading and only represents one opinion. I looked at the Beatles page for clarity and look how they word the same type of lead-in section: "In 2008, Billboard magazine released a list of the all-time top-selling Hot 100 artists to celebrate the US singles chart's fiftieth anniversary, with the Beatles at number one. They have been honoured with 7 Grammy Awards, and they have received 15 Ivor Novello Awards from the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors. The Beatles were collectively included in Time magazine's compilation of the 20th century's 100 most influential people." As you see importance is show through sales data and after proving the weight then they use an opinion piece as backup. You are resting the weight of a statement on one opinion, that's my problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialDoughboy (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria has been met. CCM, a mainstream Christian music magazine, made a statement. Powell, the author of EoCCM worked for CCM magazine. That is what is used for inclusion. It is a good, general work. HM magazine, which focuses on metal and "heavy music" doesn't see it that way. I can imagine why. I also imagine that Harvest Rock Syndicate which focuses on alternative music would also not have the album on their top list. If you have a problem with the statement, feel free to take it up with those authors. All we are doing is quoting a WP:V source. And not capitalizing "Christian" doesn't help you make your point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I know where you stand, it's over. Don't get what the last sentence has to do with anything but to each their own.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Random Reference Link

For some reason, the section "Jesus Freak (1995–1997)" has a reference link at the beginning of the fourth paragraph. Since it links to the band's biography on allmusic, I have no idea where the link needs to actually be. Any ideas? --Kitsunegami (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Who does the reprise of Jesus Freak on that album? The dorky, off-key version? Is it one of the guys??? Thanks! Bouncehoper 04:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... I do not know. Will try researching that and letting you know if I come up with anything. aJCfreak yAk 09:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

hey Ajcfreak, someone on songmeanings.net just told me it's michael tait. yay mystery solved! Bouncehoper 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard it was Mark Heimermann. I've heard that since the release in 95. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucius funk (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on DC Talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DC Talk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:DC Talk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has serious reference/citation issues. See WP:CITE. The lead could use some expanding, see WP:LEAD. It also gets painfully listy towards the bottom. -- Pepsi2786 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the article be downgraded to Start-class (albeit a high Start-class), per comments on Delirious?. --3M163//Complete Geek 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 12:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DC Talk. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DC Talk. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DC_Talk/Archive_1&oldid=1159402685"