Talk:Daniel Amos

Article title

Why in the world is this article titled "Daniel Amos Band", a bizarre name I don't think they ever went by. It should just be under Daniel Amos. Or do we need to go rename some other pages: Beatles Band, U2 Band, Radiohead Band, etc... --68.147.53.251 04:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

--Excellent question. No idea why that was done, but it doesn't make any sense to me. They've always been known as either DAniel Amos, DA or Da... no band in the name ever.

• • OK, explain why you keep changing the name. Is there another Daniel Amos? So far, you're not adding another one.. so why do we need the "band" thing? This rename affects a lot of articles.. so if its not needed, it shouldn't be changed.

Hi. I've fixed the original redirect from Daniel Amos Band to Daniel Amos (band) and updated every article which linked to the old name (except one talk page and one copyvio). Hope this helps! :)

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • My name is Daniel Amos. -- Doo Doo 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Ok, that'll be valid in this discussion when theres an article written about you.

OK, I have a question about the renaming. I'm told on other pages that an article doesn't need to be renamed with a disambiguation title if it is the "most famous" use of the name. (For example, Sticks and Stones goes to an article about one album, even though there are other albums on Wikipedia with the same name. I'm told this is ok because it is the most famous of those albums). In the case of Daniel Amos, there is no other article with that name. If you do a Google search, every article that comes up is about this band. (I just went through the first 10 pages of hits and only saw one other artice come up about a guy named Dan Amos, who is the CEO of AFLAC. I realize someone might jump at the chance to write an AFLAC CEO article.. but, it appears he goes by the name "Dan" and not "Daniel" even if that happens.) If you do a search on the Internet Movie Database *or* All Music Guide, again you only get this band. So, wouldn't this be the most famous use of the name? If so, why do we need the (band) in the title? I don't really care - I just don't fully understand the decision. User:audiori 09:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This argument makes no sense per norms. Beatles redirects no The Beatles, it dosen't disambiguate to show other uses. Note the arrangement of The Beatles to The Beatles (album) and The White Album to The White Album (disambiguation). This move does not help wikipedia either for overall organization, or for scaling. Dan, the CowMan 16:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

So, should it just go back to Daniel Amos as the regular article? Audiori 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and moved it back. If someone comes along named Daniel Amos and starts beating this band in Google, IMDB and AllMusic Guide searches... I'll help move it back. In the last 30+ years, there hasn't been anyone using this name that is more famous than this band though, so I don't expect it to suddenly happen overnight. Audiori 22:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Antoher DA goes under Daniel Amos (disambiguation), per the principal of least astonishment. Dan, the CowMan 03:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sections

I have added some tentative section headings to the article. I think they're pretty good but I'm far from certain they're as good as they can be. Feel free to suggest/make changes to "soup it up". In particular I think the Alarma boxset needs its own section but it's a bit weak right now..needs beefed up with another sentence or two. GBrady 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Added some to some sections. Also separated the HD and Darn Floor reissue talk at Larry Norman's request. Audiori (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

As Wikipedia states, not everything needs a citation. Only things that are likely to be disputed. A CD's release is not really one of those things is it? The CDs have been for sale for a while, you can read reviews online, its currently for sale at the band's website, etc, etc. Its out there. Its even mentioned in live webcasts... like this one - http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/15471517 Audiori (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:FACTS. The CD's release is not in question. What is in question is that the band's website announced that Deluxe Editions of the two CDs would be ready for the tour. Since it said it on the website, that means it's easy to cite. There have already been deluxe editions of the self titled album. The amount of promotional material is starting to make the article unprofessional. I think it's great that their sales manager is editing the article, but if the promotional material isn't reduced (like album announcements and tour dates) it could be a conflict of interest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You expect someone to watch a 96 minute video to verify something that was stated on a website? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying is in dispute. I posted when it went on sale because you wanted more info. I don't see any of it as "promotional material." Its just facts of when it went on sale. What am I supposed to give you? Here's a review - hows that? http://downthelinezine.com/reviews/shotg...by-daniel-amos/

There was only one deluxe edition of the first album. There is a rerelease of that same deluxe edition. And.. for what its worth, I don't believe I added this info about these releases.. I'm just updating it. Audiori (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Correction - I guess I did add the thing original announcing the releases.) Audiori (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap.. wait a second - Down the Line moved the review. I'll find the new link. Audiori (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Heres a review http://downthelinezine.com/reviews/shotgun-angel-collectors-edition-by-daniel-amos/

How exactly is mentioning the release of a CD "promoting the band?" Is mentioning that Abbey Road was released in 1969 somehow an advertisement for the Beatles? Is mentioning that Elvis recorded "Hound Dog" an advertisement for Elvis? Its a fact. Not everything has to have a citation... You might as well ask for a citation about when Larry Norman was born. There are some things that are just a fact. Its not hard to find. A CD is available to the entire world. Audiori (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The way it's done.

Thanks for the refs. Is there a way to link to the entries without linking to the root of the website? When new material is added, they'll be bumped off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The way its done? Whats wrong with "The band's website also announced that Deluxe Editions of their debut album, Shotgun Angel and Mr. Buechner's Dream would be released in June in time for the band's tour"? I just followed the wording that someone else started the paragraph with ("The band's website.."). It certainly doesn't have to be worded that way. Audiori (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Because in six months, or six years, when someone checks those references, they won't be able to see the information since it will have scrolled off the page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Per wp:v (emphasis added): "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [E]verything in articles ... must be verifiable.... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I would urge anyone who wants to retain the uncited material in this article to provide inline citations, because it has been challenged by a 2010 tag, I am challenging it again now, and it is subject to being challenged yet again by removal. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to challenge specific material. An amorphous page-wide tag doesn't help at all. Thank you for forcing us to provide references. It would be much better to tag specific statements rather than removing it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The 2010 tag addresses all the uncited material in the article. Such tags are made for cases such as this. Editors should feel free to challenge all uncited material in an article -- in fact, use of such tag is completely common. If you personally wish to not use such tags, then don't. But there is no reason you should suggest to other editors that they should not feel free to use them, or act on them. And -- as you know, I expect -- there isn't even a need to tag the article or a sentence. Any uncited item can be concurrently challenged (by deletion) and deleted. This, as of week ago, was an embarrassment in my view, largely uncited. Despite a head's up from 2010. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

In the documentation section for template:Refimprove it states: "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with {{Citation needed}} instead of placing this template." So please do so. If you personally wish to not use such tags, then don't, but don't tell other editors that a different tag is the equivalent when it's not, and making up your own rules is not advisable either. While you're correct in stating that any unreferenced item may be challenged, doing so by deletion is not preferable. If you want to see embarrassments, feel free to look at Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2006. Oh, and please drop the sanctimonious attitude. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I did consider it. But it was appropriate to have a page template in 2010, and continues to be so in 2013, as most of the page suffers from the same malady. Now, years later -- still. This is a poster child of appropriate use of the template -- and I'm not aware that anyone has failed to consider other options, and agf so I assume they did. What rules did I make up? That this tag is appropriate, and appropriately applied, and that editors should feel free to challenge all the uncited material on the page with a page template -- and not lectured by you with the misleading directive that they are (implicitly) only free to tag with individual sentence templates? You are an experienced editors, and it is unhelpful when experienced editors -- I assumed at first inadvertently -- mislead other editors by suggesting that their "freedom" is to tag only individual sentences.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, this article is a poster child of inappropriate misuse of the template. The rules you're making up is removing material before tagging specific material as suggested in the template. I'm sorry you didn't read that, let me provide it again: template:Refimprove it states: "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with {{Citation needed}} instead of placing this template." You didn't consider marking individual unreferenced statements, you simply removed them. I didn't say you were lecturing me, I said that you had a sanctimonious attitude. Not all those with sanctimonious attitudes lecture. I can see now how you incorrectly equate statements. I'll have to try to understand that in you better. I'm not stating that you must tag material, simply that you consider doing so instead. Much of the material here is common knowledge to me and other editors so it's not immediately obvious what does and doesn't need to be referenced. I also trust that you're working as hard on the earlier backlogged articles with as much diligence as you are on this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd. This article has been largely uncited for years. Hopefully, someone will improve it quickly. If not, as indicated, the uncited material was challenged at the time of tagging. I'm challenging it yet again. If the problem is not addressed, it will be deleted. I already told you what I considered -- I also considered doing the work that the initial contributor failed to do to search for and provide the cites. Please never tell me again what I did and did not consider, especially when it conflicts directly with what I told you. If you think that you or others can add uncited material just because it is common knowledge to you (or them), such as the uncited material in the article, then you have not read what OR is, and that it is not acceptable. And I've done much work on many articles that have such material -- are you suggesting that this material should stand, because it meets OR in that you "know it to be true", having been tagged for years ... because you think my number of edits are insufficient to demonstrate a right to delete uncited material from this article? That's not how it works.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Politeness is absurd? Doing things as suggested is absurd? Feel free. While you may delete this material, it's clearly rude and makes for a hostile environment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we've been quite polite about the failure to meet wp:v. It's been flagged as an issue since 2010. Largely ignored -- that is what is rude. And inimical to the goals of the project. I've flagged again that deletion is in the offing if not addressed. Now ... in 2013. It's still largely uncited. It's not impolite to delete the material that fails to meet wp:v, and that has been flagged for that deficit since 2010. Just the opposite -- it's rude to insert unverified information, some of which relates to blps, and think its just find that there are no refs -- even though they were called for in 2010. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've just gone and performed the fallacy of equivocation. You know what I wrote and you know why what you're doing is rude. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Just stumbled into this mess, as Walter was working on adding citations earlier today. I just made a few small additions to the article, with citations from an additional source. Deleting large sections of articles for lack of citations is counterproductive to the quality of the article, and is just plain lazy. Go look for sources yourself before deleting. I also have to agree with Walter that continuing to make wholesale deletions while another editor is working on the citation issue was just plain rude.

But that's water under the bridge; in spite of the laziness and rudeness, the article looks much better. Thank you, Walter -- Foetusized (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. But it is misplaced. Clearly, the laziness is on the part of the editor who adds the material -- but does not supply refs. And with the editors who cry out that such material should not be deleted -- despite lacking refs, despite being tagged since 2010, and despite talk page discussion of this malady. You may want to read wp:burden. The burden is on an editor seeking to restore such uncited material to supply proper inline refs. Not the other way around. Editors don't get to add wholly uncited OR "just because they know it", and then have anyone serious countenance their complaint that other editors should do the work to reference such original research, tagged since 2010, and violative of wp:v. This is fairly basic.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome Foetusized.

Epeefleche. I'm not sure why you feel the need to argue this point when you've got two experienced editors saying the same thing to you. While your action forced me to find the references that I already had (after dragging though my memory trying to remember where I read that material first), your behaviour was not cooperative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter -- because I've spoken to dozens of editors about this very issue, as experiences as you, and am certain your view is non-consensus, not in accord with wp:v, and you are turning the rule on its head -- if material is uncited and has been left to be fixed for years ... for you to express distress when it is deleted and then complain that the deleter was engaging in non-cooperative behavior is clearly wrong-headed. If you spoke to an inexperienced editor that way, they might believe you. I happen to see what you are doing, have discussed this issue and wp:burden and wp:v at length with others, and see that you think this is a blog where people can just put down uncited material that they assert is true without any ref whatsoever, have it challenged for years, and then complain about its deletion. That's a fairly basic misunderstanding.

Also, btw -- it does not matter what the format of the original item is -- whether date format or another format ... in a wp article, we conform to wp format ... for example, if the article is all MDY, and a source is DMY, we cite to the source in MDY everything else being equa.

I know this conversation is old, but I just noticed it.

A bit of history.... This article (and many, many, many others on Wikipedia) was largely written without citations because back then - people were not "citation happy." When Wikipedia first started, the only thing that really needed a citation was anything that was likely to be disputed. Or was being disputed. For example, if I added a note to Dick Van Dyke's page that he murdered his landlord, someone would challenge that line. Not the entire article, or whether or not Dick Van Dyke was actually born or if he ever starred in a TV show or if he now has white hair or danced on rooftops in Mary Poppins. Only the disputed line would be in question and, if I could not provide a citation to back it up, it would be removed. Not the entire article.

The others are also correct that the emphasis on Wikipedia editors from the very beginning was to try your best to improve an article *before* you mark it for deletion. In addition to being "citation happy," people on Wikipedia these days are "delete happy." The goal of Wikipedia - as told to me from one of the original administrators at the very start - was to continually grow. Include articles on things that you wouldn't find in an encyclopedia. Include articles on anything noteworthy. What is noteworthy? Well, that was disputed quite a bit back then - A kid making a tape in his bedroom would not be noteworthy, but there were record albums that had pages that were probably only purchased by 400 people.... and no one disputed them. Basically, if it was known by more than a few people, it was worthy of an article. Deleting was discouraged unless it absolutely had to be done. The goal was always to improve the article! My how things have changed. This is why I hardly ever edit an article anymore. Audiori (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Amos. 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/20130524053927/http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/daniel-amos/features/daniel-amos/ to http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/daniel-amos/features/daniel-amos/

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

Y 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) 01:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)