Talk:Amy Grant

Gary Chapman link

Why does Gary Chapman link back to Amy Grant? Entrprs6 16:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• They were both married to each other at one time. -TonyW 00:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Gary Chapman article link does not redirect back to Amy Grant, and Amy's voice has always sounded better in the studio than live. --69.19.206.120 02:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This problem was fixed 00:05, 29 March 2005. A redirect was on Gary's page, and it was fixed soon after.Antmusic 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hit Songs?

Most other artist pages indicate why the songs were considered hit songs. There needs to be some sort of chart rating, not that they were well-liked songs. If they were Billboard hits or high on some other chart, that should be noted, otherwise they should be removed.

I agree, and also there is quite a bit of text describing the theme and contet of songs which is not relevant to the subject of the article. --Eddylyons 19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Individual song pages with chart information are being worked on & created everyday. The Amy section of pages on Wikipedia are looking great (thanks to everyone who has been working so hard on them including Supertrouperdc, 71.130.177.220 & Ieditwiki). I have created a lot of stubs to get people started, and I will continue to do so when I have time. Antmusic 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference please

In 1995, Amy was interviewed, pointing to Hootie & The Blowfish and Sheryl Crow, with their acoustic guitars and more rock-oriented music, and wondered what she was still doing on the pop side of things --Eddylyons 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

More information available from another Wiki

You can either quote it or link to it. http://christianmusic.wikia.com/wiki/Amy_Grant. Will 06:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

Given a music contract at age 16. Needs more on early life and how she obtained that first contract. Wfoj2 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is her discography missing "The Animals Christmas"?

"The Animals Christmas" album by Amy Grant and Art Garfunkel from 1986 (they were equally billed on this album... Jimmy Webb is also mentioned on the front of the album). Antmusic 22:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The discography on Grant's page is a selection only. I noticed you asked this same question in the main discography article. Feel free to add it! – Κεραυνοσκώπηα 01:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keraunoscopia (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heart In Motion.jpg

Image:Heart In Motion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. BetacommandBot 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done Ariel♥Gold 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

Per WP:TRIVIA, I have removed the majority of these items from this section. "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." Grant, like any other musician, has had her music played on a wide variety of areas, from TV to movies, to special events. This is not unusual, and does not warrant a list citing any time one of her songs was played. The article is about Grant, and information like her being parodied, or her album being seen in a quick shot on some TV show, is not relevant. I have kept two items that actually do relate directly to her, but those will need to be incorporated into the article's prose, per the manual of style's guideline. I didn't have the time to get to that just now, so am explaining the reasons here. Ariel♥Gold 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have again removed the non-relevant items. As explained above, we do not need to know every television show or movie that used her song, or image, or any parody of her, they are not relevant to the person's biography. Please review the trivia guideline, given above, as well as the discussion page for the manual of style. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 07:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gary Chapman

Why does this article go into editorializing on Chapman when he is not the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery (talk • contribs)

Perhaps the same reason it quotes Gary Chapman on whether or not he wanted a divorce - content which I've removed as it is not encyclopedic, but rather there to moralise on whether Grant was right to get a divorce. There is probably more that needs to be cleaned out of these section. Holford (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Divorce is a moral issue. Holford, this page was more than likely started because of someones POV and interest in Grant. Am I not correct on that? Also, by placing the drug and alchohol items in the article it is to falsely give the impression of sympathy for Grant. That is POV. There is a quote by Grant in regards to why she felt divorce was ok, the quote from Chapman is to give clarification to the whole. Both opinions are important since there were two people involved in it, wouldn't you agree?

Also, I notice a POV in trying to show Chapman in the worst possible light.

Notoadultery1 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

I removed this section as the controversies seem to consist of a personal ancedote of a time she got angry as a teenager and shouted at a sound engineer (complete with POV and the inability to correctly spell "Holm" or "Tarrant" (and there's no cite because none exists), a 1995 Ladies Home Journal article copied into someone's personal webpage, an a comment on a heavily edited YouTube video where she referred to the painted lady on the front of a sailing ship as being "tits to the wind". I'm not aware of any public outcry (from the Christian community or otherwise) about any of these. It rather appears that Notoadultery has a personal agenda of looking for "bad" things that Amy has done at some time and making sure we all know about them. Hardly the purpose of an encyclopedia. Holford (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The following was posted on my talk page, but belongs here: The information I supplied about what happened in Fort Worth is true, I was there. The other information is VERY Recent. The only reason to remove it is to protect her reputation, i.e. reverse form of editorializing. I have provided sources for those. To remove the context of Chapmans whole statement is not telling the WHOLE truth. Notoadultery1 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery1 (talk • contribs)

You have changed your name from "Notoadultery" to "Notoadultery1", after other editors have explained to you why your edits to the Amy Grant page are not acceptable. As everyone can see, your only edits under either identity have been to the Amy Grant page and have been in violation of Wikipedia policies. Given your chosen editor name and your only chosen article, it is rather patently obvious that you are editing to a particular agenda. I realise that you must have some particular spiritual idiosyncracies or sensibilities that are offended by Amy's use of "tits to the wind" in her Hollywood walk star acceptance speech and that you think this somehow damages her reputation, which must therefore be exposed. It's simply not encyclopedic. Neither is a personal anecdote. I don't doubt that sometime in the 1970s, when Amy was a teenager, she lost her temper at a soundman. It just isn't relevant that you saw her get mad once. It's also not relevant that in an article 13 years ago, not even available from the original publisher, which was based in part on an interview, she expressed some views about people (like you, it would appear) who have an overwhelming need to expose anyone and everyone's sexual history or shortcomings.

As for the context of Gary Chapman's statement, you have included a quote that supports your agenda. It has nothing to do with the whole truth and nothing to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. If it were even relevant, the NPOV policy (with which you continue to show either no familiarity or regard) would prevent it. Wikipedia is not here to show the world (or the Church) who the good people and bad people are. Holford (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have a POV here. So much so that you assume I changed my "Name" to try to avoid someone detecting who I am. I actually forgot my pass word, I mean, it is obvious that I am trying to be underhanded when I put 1 behind my alias. Misspelling is NOT a reason to get rid of the controversies section. Just because you feel that sexual immorality is not a big deal, she has placed herself in the Christian leadership realm. Many people buy her recordings without getting a whole understanding of who she is, what she actually believes, and what she has done. You obviously feel she should be sheilded from negativity. That is ok for you to feel that way, but, the fact remains there are people that are offended by her vulgarity, and there are websites with that video imbeded showing just that. I purposely chose not to use them as I WOULD be accused of POV infraction. Just because you choose not to see if there are those who are offended and post it is not a reason to edit it out. If you continue to make take my edits out, I will have no recourse but to follow the guidelines and have this matter arbitrated.

Notoadultery1 (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Holford, please reveiw [1] in the second paragraph under the heading "Focus on Content" this sentence occurs "If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it."

Notoadultery1 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever gave my views on sexual immorality. My views are irrelevant. The issue is whether the content is relevant to a Wikipedia article. It is not a matter of dispute resolution. You are plainly not following the editing rules. Our job is not to make sure that whoever buys her recordings knows what she believes or what she has done. It is not to go out and find things on the internet that will prove a point or alert the unsuspecting. NPOV does not mean that we put everybody's point of view. It isn't "balanced point of view". It is neutral point of view.

I have left comments of a more personal nature with regard to your editing on the talk page of your newer identity. Holford (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Holford, others had already edited this section. I reviewed their talk pages and they seem to be capable editors. Then you come along and change the text to alter the fact of a track record prior to her divorce of having done controversial things. I totally took out my eye witness experience as a compromise with you. If I had done such a bad job earlier with not having the text as neutral then Adavidb would have stated so and would have instructed me as such. Notoadultery1 (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I had chosen to stay out of this issue up to now, though with my name being included here it seems I should "weigh in". My interpretation of the article's neutrality seems to fall between yours. The WP:BLP policy makes it clear how we need to be more careful when writing about living people. It's important that as editors we strive not to overemphasize (or play down) issues, and instead present them in a neutral manner. Separating one's own personal views from those used as a neutral editor can be difficult. Among my edits here, I believe I've "neutralized" some of the wording, though more can be done in that regard. Where reliable external sources support it, Grant's views and behavior (and those of her associates) can certainly be included, but it should be done from an unbiased perspective. —ADavidB 10:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ADavidB, the problem is that the controversies are of Notoadultery/Notoadultery1's own making. These are not noteworthy. There is no media comment (Christian or otherwise) on Amy using what Notoadultery/Notoadultery1 considers a vulgarity when she got the star on the Walk of Fame. Having watched the YouTube video, I didn't see the children present, but whether there were is even more irrelevant. Notoadultery/Notoadultery1 has independently researched things to support the fact that he doesn't like the way that Amy's divorce and remarriage allegedly transpired and that he has determined she has certain personal shortcomings. Finding a quote from her ex-husband about what he believes God's will to have been is also not encyclopedic. Perhaps there are other examples in Wikipedia of an former spouse commenting on whether they wanted the divorce or even whether it was God's will to divorce, but I haven't seen it and can't imagine how it is encyclopedic.

It would be reasonable to comment in Wikipedia that Grant's Christian fan base was affected by various stories and rumours surrounding the divorce of Grant and Chapman. It could also be noted that because of Grant's prominence, some clergy and Christian writers opined upon it, sometimes suggesting that it was evidence of Grant's moral failings. That would be NPOV. Holford (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO this whole "controversies" section is dumb and nothing more than Notoadultery's POV. Amy Grant is known by the entire public to be one of the most clean cut figures in music, and has NEVER been a controversial figure. Plus, the "controversial" stuff that he lists are very trivial, that you have to be the must uptight, thin-skinned and easily-offended person on the face of the earth to consider them to be controversial. Now I understand that due to Grant's Christian fanbase, that her getting divorced would be controversial, since divorces are looked down upon by them. But some of these "controversies" are plain stupid. So she said a swear word while getting her star on the Walk of Fame. SO WHAT? Tori Amos says words like "cunt", "fuck", and "twat" all the time in concerts and interviews and nobody cares! In a nutshell, this "controversies" section is trivial and needs to be removed. Notoadultry appears to be a very conservative person, and thus that twists his POV and what he would view as controversial will just come off as trivial to someone else, like how it has to me. But I am non-religious and a huge Tori Amos fan, so what do I know? Anyways, I am getting rid of it until a solid consensus is met. Notoadultry, I suggest that you leave the page alone until this is fully talked over. Karrmann (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Karrmann,

That is what we are trying to say is there should be NPOV, your opinion on the matter is not reason enough to remove the section. We are talking about a christian artist here not a secular, and as one Grant should have a higher standard. She IS controversial thus the controversies section, also there cannot be a consensus view if no one knows about it. I remind you of the policy that if you do not agree don't just delete. The controversies section has been edited by qualified editors before you came along. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery1 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia there is no distinction between Christian artists and "secular" artists. There is no higher standard. That is part of the reason you are wrong about NPOV. This section was edited by other editors who took the approach that if it was going to be left there for any amount of time while this is sorted out, the most egregious bits had to be neutralised as much as possible with that context. That editing does not amount to an endorsement. For someone with 25 edits - all but one to some aspect of this page and the only other an atrocious POV commentary related addition to the Contemporary Christian music article, you seem very eager to demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia policies when every edit you have made has violated them. Holford (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Notoadultery, I want to point out a few things. I am a very experienced editor who has been editing for three years, and I have dealt with numerous editing conflicts like this in the past. By removing the section, I was taking the standard step of keeping the integrity of the page while we try to work out the conflict on the article's talk page. Second, it was not my POV that the section be removed; every editor besides from you agrees that the information you are adding to the article violates NPOV since you claim that Amy is held to a higher standard since she is a Christian artist. What holds Amy to a higher standard? She is nothing more a pretty face who throws out music like everybody else. What makes her better than Tori Amos, Sarah McLaughlin, Tracy Chapman, Carole King or any other female singer-songwriter? Nobody judges somebody's behavior only on the merit of the religion they have; a celebrity isn't judged under a different eyeglass because she is either Christian, or Jewish, or Orthodox, or an Atheist, get my drift? The information that you are attempting to add is clearly POV due to your more conservative beliefs on moralty: The biggest majority of people don't care that she said a swear word as a public ceremony, and that is why she didn't start a full fledged controversy from it. Keep in mind that this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article that is to be read by MILLIONS of people. Because of that, information should not be added into this article that purports her action from the POV from a certain kind of person. Just look at it this way: Michael Richards going on a racist rant is a controversy, Mel Gibson's anti-semitic rant after getting pulled over for a DUI is a controversy, Amy Grant saying that occasionally saying a swear word is humorous is not a controversy. Just because a small number of overtly-uptight people may have objected still doesn't make it a controversy. Amy Grant is not a controversial figure, she is seen as the golden child of the music industry for crying out loud! Karrmann (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

She holds herself to a different standard. As a member of the GMA she agreed to be. That notwithstanding, she IS a controversial figure, since she is there should be knowledge of these controversies. I'll tell you what, I will change the section to "Public View and Perceptions", seems to work for George W Bush.

Notoadultery1 (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A guideline and two policies whose content may help with recent article edits are: conflict of interest, consensus, and dispute resolution. —ADavidB 04:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care to what standard she holds herself, your edits are still unacceptable. Little trivial stuff like you present here can not be presented as controversies on a WORLDWIDE ENCYCLOPEDIA. When will you realize that this has to be a neutral article, and you can not push your conservative opinion here? Karrmann (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand now, only a liberal pov can exist on Wiki. Thanks for making this abundantly clear.

Notoadultery1 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've never been called liberal and I have no problem editing here. It's not a conservative or liberal POV that is acceptable, it is a neutral POV. That doesn't mean articles are tit-for-tat (not to be confused with "tits to the wind", of course): "Someone put something in there that makes Amy look nice, so I better put something in that makes her look bad, then we're even." It is not a liberal POV and it is not agenda-pushing to remove content that is not relevant to the encyclopedia or is there to inform or influence either a few like-minded people or all of the world's 2 billion Christians, even if that content is from a conservative or fundamentalist evangelical POV. You have heard this from conservative, liberal, and non-aligned editors. This is what I hope is abundantly clear. Holford (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if we can get this clear here, before we go Round 2 over at the Contemporary Christian music article. Holford (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that will make you go away and quit causing a huge fuss here, then sure, believe that. But really, it is not anyone's beliefs over anothers, it is all about creating a factual, accurate article for an Encyclopedia project. And because of that, you referring to her saying a swear word or saying that premarital sex is ok as a controversy is just ridiculous hyperbole. Any average person will not see any special objection to it, because just about everyone does it. Amy isn't an Angel or a uptight snob, she is a person just like you and me! She will stick be her beliefs, even if they do not fit within a standard line of what people are forced to believe do to religion, which I respect her for. And everybody swears, it is human behavior. Sorry to sound mean/harsh, but I want to point out how ridiculous these "controversies" and your behavior are. Karrmann (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Karrmann, I think that if she had actually said premarital sex was okay and there had been a significant kerfuffle about it amongst her Christian fan base, that might have been significant enough to include. Likewise if there had been a storm over using the word "tits" in her Hollywood star speech, such that it were a major event in her professional career, then it might be reasonable to include it. The problem is that they weren't controversies at all, but rather they were controversial to Notoadultery and he wants other people to know about it. Holford (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Request that edits be discussed first; to Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and others

To Hullabaloo Wofowitz- I request to you and all who are working on the Amy Grant page that you discuss all changes and edits on this page. I do not feel that the changes you made on your latest edit are appropriate. They are not in line with wiki instructions, with other pages in this genre (i.e., Michael W. Smith) or with the spirit or letter of the Amy Grant entry. Please discuss your edits, your credibility, your background and your reasoning before changing the Grant page. I am a journalist in Nashville, TN, who has covered Grant's entire career and Gospel and Contemporary Christian music and much more.