Talk:Fanny Crosby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 06:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Crosby and her relationship with the Bowery Mission in New York City[edit]

This article uses the reference, Memories of Eighty Years, 1906. Chapter 18 is devoted to Crosby's role in the Bowery Mission starting in 1881. The article also cites Crosby's hymn, "Rescue the Perishing" written in 1869 in association with Dr. Doane.

I think the article would benefit from a clarification or correction of the misnomer that Crosby was inspired to write Rescue the Perishing after attending a meeting in the Bowery Mission.

Examples where the connection between the mission and Crosby and the hymn
  1. Great Heart of the Bowery, John G. Hallimond, 1925, page 91.
  2. www.schfrs.crosswinds.net/hymns/rescue.htm features an excerpt attributed to S. Trevna Jackson: "I [Crosby] remember writing the hymn in 1869. It was written following a personal experience at the New York City Bowery Mission." Page 73.
  3. Songs for all the world, Willard Price, 1925.
  4. "Violet Day at the Bowery Mission," Christian Herald and Signs of The Times, April 8, 1914.
Arguing against the Bowery Mission as the inspirational site are
  1. The Bowery Mission Annual Reports of 1881 and 1883 showing it was founded on November 6, 1880 at 36 Bowery. Thus well after the hymn was composed.
  2. Crosby's biography, Memories of Eighty Years, asserts that 1881 marked "her connection" with the Bowery Mission, page 161. Thus she could not have been in the mission as early as 1869.
  3. Furthermore, her bio relates how she met a man in a YMCA in November 1903 who was the boy now a man who sat in the mission thirty-five years ago and served as the motivation for writing the hymn. His recollection puts the episode at 1868 close enough to the 1869 actual date of authorship.

Lastly the bio is specific about her role in the Bowery Mission. She attended 16 anniversaries of the Bowery Mission beginning in 1881 and on each occasion wrote a hymn. Examples of these hymns are found in the Annual Reports of the Bowery Mission. It's optional, but the first one could be included in the article to give readers an idea of her theme, imagery, words, and so fourth. These comments could be appropriate for the section Career in Writing Hymns. --Rasjisginflu (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)rasjisginflu

Above comments read and noted. See article for significant improvements.smjwalsh (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is wayyyy too long[edit]

It shouldn't take over a minute to load this page. Over 800 refs? Ridiculous. Someone with a faster Internet connection needs to prune this down, remove the overreferencing, and split it off into other articles where appropriate. This is worse than Larry Norman. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So what is the maximum number of refs permitted? I was not aware of any guidelines or policies restricting documentation. I do see major references to the opposite - lack of sources. As to how long an article should take to load, that will depend on many factors including bandwidth and speed of your connection. I dare say article would benefit from creation of sub-articles. I will see when I can attempt them.smjwalsh (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So how much is too long? WP sets no maximum size for its articles. While 32kB used to be a guideline many years ago because of technical reasons, the relevant article indicates no absolute maximum. Also, the criteria for measuring article size is readable prose not gross size. According, as of today, this article is "Prose size (text only): 108 kB (18342 words) "readable prose size". This is only 8% longer than 100kB discussed. The suggested remedy is creation of sub-articles not reduction in content. If list of articles was based on readable prose, this article would not be near the top. As intimated above, it is the scholarly apparatus that is major contributor to gross size here. smjwalsh (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Looking at Special:LongPages shows a strange bias for relatively unknown Christian music figures. Here is a listing of the twenty longest articles about individual people (I left out Jesus because there is no documented evidence of him unlike the other people in this listing):

Of the top six, half are relatively unknown Christian music figures. Most people on the list are leaders of sovereign states or other high-ranking political figures. JIP | Talk 09:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the 20 people you list, only 2 could be regarded as Christian music artists. In any case, is that an important consideration. While they may be unknown to you, let me assure you that both are major artists in their field. Crosby is he most prolific writer of hymns in Christian history, probably writing more than 10,000 (compare to about 400-500 songs by Dylan), was best known woman in USA a century ago, and her sheet music sold in excess of 100 million copies. While article is long, she lived 94 years and had prolific careers in three separate areas" poetry, popular music, and Christian hymns. Of those listed above, 5 I have never heard of, but that's OK, as I can now read article to find out what makes them important. So your position is that politicians are more worthy than musicians? Crosby arguably made a greater contribution to hmanity than Tiger Woods or Ted Kennedy.smjwalsh (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm quite sure I'm not the only person here on the English Wikipedia they're unknown to. However, based on what you say, they should be known to the majority. I don't think politicians are more "worthy" or "important" than musicians, but I think they are generally better known. There are two other musicians in the list, Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley, both of which are near the bottom of the list. I am sure far more people have heard of Adolf Hitler or George W. Bush than Fanny Crosby or Larry Norman. Still, I don't quite think the article should be trimmed just because she is less known than them. The article should be judged by its own merits, to see what parts are relevant and what are not. You have said earlier that both Hitler and Bush have many subarticles. Are there any for Crosby or Norman? JIP | Talk 22:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
There are 3.6 million articles on English WP. Unless one is a genuine polymath, the vast majority are unknown to most people. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to collect all knowledge (literal understanding of term). I'm not convinced that the vast majority of WP readers should know any one particular article. That should not be the measure. As an Australian, I along with most Australians know something about (say) current PM Julia Gillard, but I dare say she is little known beyond the 22 million people in Australia, although she is very important here. I dare say the Kardashian sisters or Paris Hilton are better known than Julia Gillard, but few would argue thay are more important. A person may be very important but relatively unknown. There are those like Crosby who were very well-known in the late 19th century but far less well-known today. There are those who may be well-known by many of the 2 billion Christians in the world, but little known outside the church. In any case, article size as you suggest does not relate to perceived importance of the subject. I am more than happy for editors to trim judiciously based on a thorough reading of the article rather than some arbitary standard of appropriate length. I have wriiten articles that are far shorter than this one because sources and subject matter determine length. There was an attempt to create sub-articles in Larry Norman in the last week or so, but disagreement currently about whether merely shifting material is enough. One editor argues that there is fancruft so should be removed irrespective of length, whereas others seem to be concerned about length only. The two issues are related. As an inclusivist, I'm more than happy to know more than less. smjwalsh (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I am all in favour of splitting both Fanny Crosby and Larry Norman into subarticles. JIP | Talk 22:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. But what about Jiddu Krishnamurti? Here we should only focus on Crosby. I would rather create more sub-articles than delete well-researched content.smjwalsh (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Another thing: This article has ten interwiki links to articles on other Wikipedias. This article is almost 5.5 times as long as all of them put together. JIP | Talk 19:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So will you help me increase their length. Size on other wikis is irrelevant. Some people are more important to one language group than another. It could easily be argued that the other wikis inadequately cover the subject of this article.smjwalsh (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Part of the size inflation is due to the cut-and-paste style of referencing. For example The Hymns and Life of Fanny Crosby is cited 122 times, and each time the full name of the book, publisher, and author is repeated. If the WP:CITESHORT was followed, each of these would be down to "Blumhofer 2005 p 310". Bernard Ruffin's book is similarly repeated 30 times. And this helps fix inconsistencies - Blumhofer is described as "Edith Blumhofer" and "Edith L. Blumhofer" when citing the same book. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 22:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Fair comment. If it was up to me, I would use the usual format used in dissertations etc, eg MLA style, but because WP articles are often frequently edited or even re-arranged, op cits, and ibids are discouraged. Is there a way these references can be quickly consolidated? Difference in citing same books often refer to different editions of book, which, for example, with Ruffin, also contain different pagination and content.smjwalsh (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Take a section like "Career in writing hymns (1864-1915)"--none of it really pertains to the article at hand, plus every person listed has their families inventoried, and their photos are there, and those of their wives and dogs, and the houses they lived in. That's the prime definition of bloaed. A list of names wikilinking to their articles would suffice, and their names mentioned in the relevant sections of the biography (though which section would that be? the article is so long it's illegible). Drmies (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations and overlength[edit]

Everyone aside from the main contributor to this article appears to agree that it is overlong, overdetailed and overdue for an overhaul. I am quite happy to work on adjusting the refs to a WP:CITESHORT format over the next few days, as a precursor to any other changes, this will at least enable the edit window to be decluttered as well as reducing the overall size somewhat. Those in favour, say aye. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Aye. I barely got this article to load. Where does this rank in the Top 20 of Longest WP Articles? For comparison, see the history of Tachash and Wyandanch, New York. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think any fair-minded person would concede that the subject of this article as the most prolific composer of hymns in the English language, as a composer of songs selling more than 100 million copies of sheet music (btw how many has Lady Gaga sold?),and as at one time one the best-known people in the USA, is perhaps sufficiently notable to be denied the Tachash and Wyandanch, New York treatment? Certainly the article can be divided. No one owns it. The mere criticism of the article because of its gross page size, rather than its readable prose length, is unwarranted. Change the references and see what effect it has on load times.smjwalsh (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • It is the 31st longest article in total, and the longest about an individual person. JIP | Talk 08:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Where does one see that info? Just curious - it makes no real difference to my proposal. - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A passing thought from a passerby: the reason there are suggestions for shortening an unfathomably long article such as this one is that we are trying to serve our readers. I can't imagine anyone reading this article, with all of the detail—maybe we should offer a link to the mini-series so they could save time :-). We would be serving the readership much better by using Wikipedia:Summary style, which is what featured articles use. A reader would be much more inclined to read a shorter review of this fascinating person's life, and have the option of going to summary articles that give more detail about each aspect of her life. It's too bad, because I think more people would be interested in learning about her if the article were readable and well written, in terms of giving emphasis to those things that are most important. First Light (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and that would be my Phase Two proposal ... assuming that we get to do Phase One above. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What's stopping phase 1?smjwalsh (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Am more than happy to co-operate in any effort to improve the article. I agree that article needs sub-articles. My method is to research and write in main article then see where sub-articles naturally occur. Give me a time to create those sub-articles, then other editors can do exactly as First Light suggests.smjwalsh (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Two things. Of general significance, it is usually best to wait a while for input. And from a personal POV, I am being put under considerable pressure at the moment, both on- and off-wiki, by a group of tendentious and nationalistic editors on India-related articles! "All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men ..." This will be a pleasant backwater! - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush , I had not noticed you have started Phase 1 process of sorting out the cites. I will suspend activity on this article and the creation of sub-articles until you indicate its OK for me to proceed. Thanks for your efforts and willingness to improve this article. I have been in this process several times with a few other articles that are considered lengthy, so anticipated the discussion and subsequent conclusion of the process. Sorry to add to your pressures. I know that feeling.smjwalsh (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I've stopped for the moment because I am unsure about something. The autobiography published by Hendrickson in the 1970s seems to be a reprint of the 1906 autobiography according to one of the notes. Is this correct or not? If not, then I need to undo by penultimate edit. - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for any delay. Crosby's autobiography published by Hendrickson is in deed a reprint. Thanks for your work so far. I apologise if it is proving onerous.smjwalsh (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This place is timeless, so no problem. Thanks for the confirmation. The article is 13kb or so lighter already, which is not a lot given its overall size but there are other benefits, consistency of citing a source name etc being one of them. I will be adjusting the ref name parameters throughout also, so that they are actually meaningful for anyone who is editing.
IMO, a fair few of the items currently listed in among the sources should actually be in a separate "Notes" section. These are things where refs have been used to say, for example, "For the only surviving photo see Crosby 1906, p. 180" (ie: almost parenthetical comments). It would have the added advantage of further streamlining the sources. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am sorry but you appear not to be learning anything. You comment above that you have had these issues before and yet you have just created Early life of Fanny Crosby and it is pretty much a copy/paste of what this article looked like yesterday, complete with an inappropriate citation system etc. Is there a reason for doing this? The whole point was a Phase 1/Phase 2 sort of approach and you have gone off and started Phase 2 without much regard for what is happening here. You are in effect just creating even more work for other people to clean up. Would it not be better to wait a while? There is a lot of content in this article which quite simply should not be in the encyclopedia at all, and you are duplicating it. We do not need to know, for example, what material and color her parents' house was. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. For that I apologise as it is my responsibility to make my thoughts clearer. There were two suggestions on this page. The first was to change method of citations, with which I agreed was necessary, then a delay in implementing that for justifiable reasons as you explained later. The second was to split the article into sub-articles, with which I was also agreeable, having participated successfully participated in this process in two other articles that were considered by some to be "too lengthy". I'm not sure that I indicated I had learnt anything or that there was any problems with previous splits. The delay in the first prompted me to act BOLDLY and create two sub-articles, with several more envisaged, shifting more intricate details to those sub-articles (where excessive detail could be removed) and making possible the editing of this article in summary style with appropriate links to the sub-articles. After creating 2nd sub-article, I realised that there would be additional work on cites as I would be exporting problem. Hence I apologised, suspended operation until the cite restoration was fixed. Has that now occured? smjwalsh (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree--there is absolutely no need for yet another article full of minutiae, and I have restored the A10 template on Early life of Fanny Crosby. Now, since I have weighed in here and made small edits to the main article, I will not execute that speedy deletion; that's for another admin to decide. But I strongly protest against creating more of these, and note that there is no consensus here for this split, contrary to what was said here. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So you would be opposed to splitting the article? What I read was some editors suggesting splitting the article, including the "too lengthy" template on main article, and no objection to splitting article. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.smjwalsh (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Drmies but in my case I quote: "it is overlong, overdetailed and overdue for an overhaul". Yes, it will almost certainly still need to be forked into several articles but that does not mean that we fork with all the minutiae intact. I am sure that I mentioned some of the issues to you a few months ago but, principally, it lacks focus. People who come to it expecting to read about Crosby are instead, for example, getting a potted history of the NY Blind Institute, of various medical conditions unrelated to Fanny herself, as well as long lists of (for this article) trivial and tangential genealogical information. And, by the way, I would query the reliability of some of the sources used for the latter: using Ancestry.com, for example, can border on being original research. You have invested a lot of time writing a small book here but it is not the appropriate place for such a thing. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate both your opinion and your willingness to actually take the time to edit main article with a view to improving it. I know it takes a lt of time to make constructive edits and that you are actually reading article as you edit each section. I have much respect for such editors rather than those who see gross size and article's position on lengthy article list and say it's too large. I also appreciate your tone. I agree that in its evolution it "grew like topsy". I had always intended to split off articles of sections that warranted it. A case in point. The history of the NY Blind Institute. Certainly material can be transferred there and away from this article. As my focus tends to be on one article at a time in researching, I tend to avoid creating new content for other articles while in that mode. I appreciate also your support for the need for new sub-articles. I hear what you are saying about exporting minutiae. MY approach has been to allow deletionists and fair-minded editors such as yourself to reduce main article as you see fit into a summary style, and then cater to hard-core enthusiasts and inclusionists in sub-articles (which could, of course, engender sub-sub-articles). As regards geneological material, this article would not be sui generis in this regard. Of course, I know that what happens in other articles is neither precedent or determinative. However, Crosby's sense of her origins affects the creation of her patriotic verses and other activities. I would be more than willing to discuss specific matters anytime. As regards, ancestry.com, it is RS and thus the material found there is fair game. It may be borderline OR in your opinion, but anything on the right size of the border is permissible. I want to affirm my willingness to work with all editors on this article as I do not own it, and I am committed to improving WP and working collaboaratively.smjwalsh (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
What Sitush says. But he says it a lot nicer. The article is full of excessive detail, and splitting it up because of its bloatedness only creates more such articles. No, no splitting. The subject should not have a biography ten times the size of Augusta, Lady Gregory, which is a featured article. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Nicer is always better. Civil discourse often elicits better outcomes. So that would be another vote in favour of trimming, and now three votes in favour of splitting and one strong vote against splitting. Duly noted. Who is to determine who exactly desrbes exactly how many words? I must admit that I have never heard of Augusta, Lady Gregory, (thank you for bringing her to my attention) or in fact of most of the subjects of the music articles you created, but welcome any new knowledge on subjects unknown to myself. As indicated above, Crosby has sold 100 million copies of sheet music of her songs, so perhaps she deserves 4 times four times the article size of Lady Gaga based on sales, and her hymns appear in every Protestant Christian hymnbook. Article size is often a function of several factors: longevity of life (she lived 94 years), diversity of activity (she was best-selling composer of popular songs, a pre-eminent hymn-writer, well-known celebrity, poet, and leading rescue mission worker - any of which would establish notability and engender a reasonable size article), as well as availability of sources. Certainly, there are items that are more inconsequential than others. Mea culpa! One person's treasure may turn out to be other people's treasure. I may be wrong but being a featured article attests to the quality of the article at a certain time, not the importance or otherwise of the subject.smjwalsh (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Passing by again—I think Sitush is taking the right approach by cleaning up the citations and trimming the article of excess detail that isn't relevant to this subject. Then there could be summary articles broken off, if need be. Breaking off the summary articles first, just to retain the excess detail, isn't the correct approach, imo. I think that the trimming should be done keeping in mind that some detail may want to be saved for the summary article. The many hours he is spending cleaning up an article he didn't write is above and beyond the call of duty, in my opinion, and he (and others) look to be doing a commendable job of it. First Light (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Crosby has now dropped to place #924 at Special:LongPages. The two longest articles about individual people are now Jiddu Krishnamurti and Larry Norman. JIP | Talk 06:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just curious. I cannot find anywhere in WP policies or otherwise that stipulates maximum length for any article. Assuming the 2 articles above are trimmed as per this one, is it the goal just to work down the list? Where would the stopping point be? At a certain size or when only instantly recognisable subjects populate the upper echelons of Special:LongPages? It seems making top 500 of this list draws more attention to an article. As there seems to be an overwhelming aversion to long articles, why isn't there a hard and fast rule about upper limits. Of course, not all articles should be at or near upoper limits. Not trying to be contentious merely reflecting to avoid spending a superfluity of hours on an article. smjwalsh (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Enough on my plate at the moment, thanks. Although I note that smjwalsh has been involved in Larry Norman. I will get round to it eventually, if someone else does not get there first. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to firstly again apologise that my efforts created so much work for you and other editors, and secondly for your care in pruning the article. I have not read the abridged version :) yet. Perhaps balance is slightly off vis a vis her hymn writing, which is certainly the area for which she is best-known. smjwalsh (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: split list of works into a separate article[edit]

It is quite common for prolific writers to have separate "lists of works" articles. While it would not solve the issue of being over-detailed (which is otherwise being addressed), it would help with the overall size problem. --LadyofShalott 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think that can be done now, although I would hope that some of the citations used for that section & its subs could be tidied up a bit.
I also intend to be reducing the Further reading section: anything that is cited inline should not be in that section, and of the remainder there really does need to be some pruning. smjwalsh should be involved in that as s/he presumably knows those items. I certainly do not! - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Will look at this early next week. smjwalsh (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Lyric citations[edit]

Is there really any need in this article to cite sources where lyrics can be found, unless those lyrics are quoted? It makes sense to do this in the forked List of works of Fanny Crosby but here it just seems like unnecessary overhead. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

now that the list of works has been split off, that does make sense. LadyofShalott 08:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Epithets in the lead (lede)[edit]

There are a lot of quoted epithets - "mother of all ..."-type stuff - in the lead section. They are all cited, but they also adopt a generalised format along the lines of "she was known as ..." or "she has been called ...". Each of these has one citation (with one exception). This seems like undue weight to me. Anyone can call anyone anything but that does not justify a generalised "she was known as" construction. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I can give multiple sources for most of these ascriptions.smjwalsh (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The ones where there are multiple possible sources will be ok, I guess. Any without multiple sources either need rewording or (preferably) binning. The lede is effectively making the same point, over and over, using slightly different wording. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Excessive citations[edit]

One example of a tendency to excessive citation is "...and Ira Sankey attributed the success of the Moody and Sankey evangelical campaigns largely to Crosby's hymns.[12][13][14]", which appears in the lead section. None of the sources are linked to an online resource & I have not checked to see if they are available in that manner ... but is there really any need for three sources for this statement? If smjwalsh or indeed anyone else has access to the sources and can arrange for this to be reduced to one then that would be great. It does not appear likely to be a disputed point & therefore multiple sources are redundant. - Sitush (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me look at it. Over citing is probably a result of one editor on another article questioning almost every sentence added.smjwalsh (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Another exampole (I have already removed a shed-load over the last few days) is "Crosby was also later a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Bridgeport, Connecticut,[31][32][33][34]". Why do we need four sources for this? Am I missing something, not being on the US side of the pond? - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm in Australia. Don't need 4 sources. See above for explanation. Feel free to reduce.smjwalsh (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
... and "Through Simon Crosby and his son, Rev. Thomas Crosby,[23][27][28]". Sorry to drone on about this but the sources are not linked & I am off to bed. I need my sleep even if the beautifying aspect of it has long passed its sell-by date. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Have a well-deserved rest.smjwalsh (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The rest, at least from this article, is going on a little longer than anticipated. I am embroiled with other issues at the moment, sorry. What is really nice is that it would appear you do understand some of the issues. I am sure that you do not agree with all of the things going on and I have said previously that this article is a fantastic piece of scholarship ... but it just doesn't entirely fit in with how Wikipedia works. I have done exactly the same thing as you elsewhere here - live and learn, I guess. You must also feel free to challenge: if you think that anyone else is using their scalpel/knife/axe/chainsaw too much etc then query it. At best, you will get your way; at worst, you will learn something new. It is painful, I know, and I apologise for that. Of course, your pride and joy remains in the history and can always be retrieved. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"Assocation"[edit]

I've added a "[sic]" to the word "Assocations" in one of the book titles, "Songs of Devotion for Christian Assocations". This is the title as shown at Hymnary.org. But a search at AbeBooks suggests the actual title is "Songs of Devotion: A Collection of Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs". Unfortunately there's not enough detail there to be 100% sure it is the same book. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)