Talk:Fanny Crosby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconWomen in Religion Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations and overlength

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)[reply
]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What's stopping phase 1?smjwalsh (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Epithets in the lead (lede)

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)[reply]

I can give multiple sources for most of these ascriptions.smjwalsh (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Excessive citations

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
Have a well-deserved rest.smjwalsh (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Assocation"

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fanny Crosby. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fanny Crosby. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources that say Fanny Crosby was a Baptist?

An anonymous editor changed the content to identify her as a Baptist - but was uncited. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fanny_Crosby&diff=prev&oldid=633678544. --Mydotnet (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is problematic, especially since the rest of the section contradicts this claim (giving documented evidence of her connection to Methodist congregations). 207.195.49.91 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style

The article currently uses an inconsistent reference style, with mostly plain-text parenthetical footnotes and a smattering of {{sfn}}. Would anybody complain about me converting the non-sfn footnotes to use sfn? I feel that for an article with 349 (!) citations this would be of benefit to the reader. It also uses a mix of CS1 ({{cite book}} and friends) and CS2 ({{citation}}) templates for the sources, along with a smattering of untemplated plain-text references. A consensus on what to standardize on would be good (if nobody cares I will go with CS1). Best, Wham2001 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that nobody does care, so I intend to start on this shortly. Wham2001 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done at this point. I have left Crosby (1903) alone because I think that it's referring to Carleton (1903); somebody more familiar than I am with the secondary source material should look into how we're using Crosby's semi-official semi-autobiography as a source. There's also a Ruffin (1985) which I think is a typo for Ruffin (1995). Wham2001 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fanny_Crosby&oldid=1217099538"