Talk:Michael W. Smith

visionary pastor?

Unless that is a part of the title, I don't believe it's npov. Contributions/209.183.189.10 (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Simply striking the unnecessary, and hagiographic word "visionary" is an easy edit, and should be done. Also, in the effort to bring this article to encyclopedic standards, I would suggest replacing, in the "Early Life" section:

"In November 1979, Smith suffered a breakdown that led to his recommitment to Jesus Christ" with "In November 1979, Smith suffered a breakdown that led to his recommitment to his Christian faith," and provide some citation for this claim. o0drogue0o 11:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't to his faith, it was to a person. A citation request would be appropriate though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did the Bio go??

I remember coming on here at one point and reading a very well written bio of Michael W Smith, which mentioned his struggle with drugs and alcohol during his younger years. Why is it gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.14.57.35 (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Has been reinserted. 25or6to4 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Family

Where does it say he's married with five kids? Shouldn't that be in the biography section of this article?

Hope I didn't mess anything up

first time I ever edited a wikipedia article - wasn't sure how to cite the quote from Smitty (I tried to paraphrase, but when you can quote that part without having watched the video in the last year or so, its kind of hard to truly paraphrase - its what I get for having watched the video 5 times in one day when I was sick once back in highschool... Anyway the quote is there, and I would assume that one quote properly cited would be fair use - but if its a big no no take it back out...

Thanks!

i tried to add something to this page and deleted some info by mistake.. sorry about that and thanks for fixing it!

"Presidents"

From the article: "Yet Smith's cozy relationship with recent presidents--and his decision to allow President Bush to use his music for campaign commercials--has been a controversial one."

It has? Who considered it a controversy? This seems like a really weird thing to include in the article. I removed the line that said it was a "mystery," that seems even more POV to me. But even the rest of this seems strange. Solkaige 04:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Coveted"?

After two decades, Smith finally won the coveted Male Vocalist of the Year award at the Dove Awards in 2003.

Just a style point, isn't a bit awkward to say that an award for Contemporary Christian music is "coveted"? --Eddylyons 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

New website

I added something about his new website launching @ 12:00 noon on July 5. I don't know how soon until his new record is releasing or what it is called. To view the new site, you need to have Flash 8 installed on your computer. There is a way to have it installed for free from his splash page.--Chili14 (Talk) 18:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Awesome God"

Should we add something about his single from 'Worship' - 'Awesome God', being used so extensively on YTMND.com? The chorus is synonymous with jokes, parodies, satires, skits, short videos, etc. etc. involving christianity. 72.139.89.194 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the original Rich Mullins version is usually used. Sir Lemming 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

larry king interview

someone should include his discussion with larry king about his drug use http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/10/lkl.01.html

an interesting read, I've added a link to external links Halsteadk 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Project.jpg

Image:Project.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

His Religious Beliefs

Since Michael W. Smith is a Christian artist, there should be a section about his religious beliefs including what denomination he is. --PaladinWriter (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Plastic Surgery?

Anyone know if MWS has undergone any plastic surgery recently (past 4 years or so)? To me, he's kind of taken on the transition that Kenny Rogers has, but not to that drastic of an extent. I was just curious as to whether my eyes were deceiving me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.90.26 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this "look" two years ago from the front row at a concert. There's been some work done up there. But what "source" is going to print it? 70.185.250.250 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite notice any difference, which part of his face do you mean? 118.137.166.89 (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

References

References given as "Brennan", "Long" etc are not acceptable - please could someone who knows what these are give the complete information (article/publication title, date, etc). Thanks Halsteadk (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

acho que você não vai entender... sou do brasil contunue assim que deus vai te abençoar mais e mais por tudo é para horra e glória de nosso _GOD_!!!! I LOVE YOU MY FRIEND......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.166.212.130 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

sou aquela mesma que disse que você não ia entender por que sou do brasil esqueci de falar MY NAME IS ASENATY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.166.212.130 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Works section

A discography article can be divided up into studio albums, live albums, compilations, etc. for easier reference. But there is no prohibition from including a complete list of a musical artist's albums in the primary article. In fact, the Wikipedia Manual of Style indicates this here: WP:WPMAG#Discography_section for MOS guidelines

"The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work. In most cases this can done using a simple list of their albums."

This can be helpful to a reader who is looking for a quick chronological overview of an artist's output. Rjaklitsch (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Too bad you don't actually understand the policy. The general policy is to exclude compilations, live albums, and even "special" releases such as Christmas albums from main articles when a discography exists. The policy you pointed to alluded to that. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section for the full discussion, but this is what "basic summary" means. See U2#Discography and Alice in Chains#Discography as examples of with many releases that only includes the main studio releases in the artist's discog section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that EPs are also on the exclusion list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your first link pointed to a discussion, not a policy. Then you link two other articles. I can also link to other articles. And where is this "exclusion list" you mention? Dividing a musical artist's work is one way of presenting information. There is no rule. I noticed a few weeks ago when another editor tried to complete the incomplete list of Michael's albums, you reverted his edit too. I recommend that we allow other editors to provide their feedback on this issue. Rjaklitsch (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion. It's the place that the guideline you're quoting was formed and is the basis of the guideline.

We can let all of Wikipedia's editors comment, but it doesn't change the guideline itself. The reason that the anon was reverted is because the edit was against the guideline. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What guideline? You linked to a discussion. You did not link to a prohibitive guideline on omitting live and artist-produced compilation albums in summary lists in main articles. Look, the Discography article is fine as is. But I'm having a hard time seeing your strong reaction to including five albums to a summary list of albums. There is no prohibition. There are only 24 albums. Rjaklitsch (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The guideline. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I linked to this very guidance and even quoted it: "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work. In most cases this can done using a simple list of their albums. For example:

• Mariah Carey (1990)
• Emotions (1991)
• Music Box (1993)
• Merry Christmas (1994)
• Daydream (1995)"

This is exactly what I did. Where in this guidance does it say you cannot include live albums or compilations in a primary article? Previous to updating this section, two of Michael's three live albums were included in the list. How does that make sense, to exclude one live album and leave two? Michael's live Worship albums do not simply present live versions of studio material, but new material presented for the first time. Michael's compilation albums also include new unreleased studio tracks, so they're not exactly knockoffs by third party production companies. The Discography article and the Nav box correctly divide the work into album types. The main article list is the only place a reader can view the chronological progression of the artist's work. Let's give this a little time and see what other editors have to say. Did you like the Publications subsection at least? Rjaklitsch (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You didn't do exactly what was described. You have restored all of Smith's albums including compilations and live albums. Feel free to read the discussion that informed the guideline. I have opened a discussion at the project to modify the guideline in order to avoid further confusion since it's not clear. If you look at the artist's article: Mariah Carey#Discography 13 albums. However at Mariah Carey albums discography we see that she has 13 studio albums, 1 live, 4 compilation albums, 1 EP and 1 remix album. Only the studio albums are listed in the discography section of the artist's article. I wonder why that is?

You should have listened when another editor pointed-out the logic behind the guideline. Instead you walked right up to the 3RR limit and did things the way you understood instead of correcting your understanding. I've done the same myself. I've been around long enough now though that I know the way that the guideline is interpreted and implemented. Feel free to self-revert so that it's in compliance with the guideline's reasoning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The same thing happens at the U2 article and Alice in Chains article as listed above except U2 have more live albums, EPs, and special releases than almost any other band I know of. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Now to answer why two three live albums were included an the first wasn't, it's because the latter first two live albums include a single studio track, and I missed the third. I agree that they should all be excluded though. I was being gracious when I originally pared it back. We will not give this any more time. You need to self-revert or I will do it for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is the policy is not clear - you are relying on elitism by assuming that everyone accepts "basic summary" has certain contents, and anyone who doesn't edit alongside the unwritten rules is wrong. It needs to be written in the guidance not buried in the discussion - and mentions in that are mostly questions and generally inconclusive, or just others like you stating what they see is right. There is also no reason that MWS's Christmas themed albums should be treated any differently to the rest - they are just another theme, like his "Worship", instrumental and soundtrack releases. Treating them differently is a fabrication of Wikipedia. In fact I am staggered that his "Worship" albums are excluded - these are amongst his most well known and are arguably why he may be known by a wider audience outside (mostly American) contemporary Christian music fans - do you actually understand *this author's* music and discography or do you just like following "rules"? Although his "Worship" CDs were recorded live, they are not "live" versions of his other albums - they are standalone in their own right. And at the end of the day do you really feel like the time you have forced people into spending discussing your removal of material that people have bothered to include in the first place, has really paid off in any "improvement" to the article? How do you feel the article now looks that it refers to awards for albums that are not part of the discography listing - 'incomplete', 'confusing' and 'inconsistent' are all words that spring to mind - which will only lead to people putting it back because WP:common sense dictates it is wrong. Halsteadk (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't mean to come off as an elitist. As for the worship albums, I too think they should be included only because of the importance to his career and their sales. It was a consideration when I initially pared the list back. Feel free to add them back. We shouldn't have his entire catalogue listed though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I restored the live albums to the list, as well as The First Decade and The Second Decade. This is the WP:MOS guidance I am following:

• MOS:WORKS : "Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article."
• WP:WPMAG : "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a basic summary of the musician's work. In most cases this can done using a simple list of their albums."

All of the albums I restored to the list contain new original material and five of the six are among the artist's most popular and best-selling albums. Worship contains Michael's first-time recordings of 12 songs, including two new original studio tracks. Worship Again contains mainly first-time recordings of new songs, including two new studio tracks. A New Hallelujah is also comprised mainly of new material, including eight new original songs by the artist. The Live Set contains three new original songs unavailable elsewhere. The First Decade and The Second Decade both contain two new original studio tracks, as well as newly mixed and remastered versions of previous recordings. The list of 23 albums is now consistent with the artist's own presentation of his collected works here: Michael W. Smith.

No WP:MOS "rule" or "guidance" justifying the omission of titles to this summary list in the artist's main article was provided. The opinion of one editor on a Discussion page does not constitute a "rule" or "guideline". The removal of titles from this list has been arbitrary and has rendered it incomplete, confusing, and inconsistent, as noted above. We have an editorial disagreement on this issue. In good faith, I reviewed the link provided again and searched other sections of the WP:MOS and found nothing justifying the restrictions being imposed here on other editors regarding album summary lists in artists' main articles. Assuming you are acting in good faith, I recommend again that we allow other editors to provide their opinions and to seek consensus per WP:CON. Rjaklitsch (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the guideline again. We are in the process of re-writing it for people like you since we all knew what it meant but new editors didn't. I removed The Live Set and the two compilations because, as I stated before, they don't belong. The worship albums do, because they're significant enough.

The second paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines currently reads

"The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums (excluding non-notable live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc.)."

I trust that's clear enough now. Any further objections will result in further clarification of the guideline. Please discuss them here rather than editing the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Career section needs revamping

I don't think dividing his career as "beginning", "mainstream venture", and "instrumental and worship" is sufficient. The "beginning" section I think needs a better title. Christian rock seems to be a major part of his work in the 80s so maybe we should add that into the title, any suggestion? "Beginning and Christian rock era" or something to that effect maybe? Also, it's kind of a stretch to lump everything he's done after 2000 in "Instrumental and worship". He's done more Pop CCM albums than he has instrumental albums and worship albums these past 15 years. He seems to have a steady cycle of pop CCM albums and worship albums, with some instrumentals/holiday/hymn/misc albums thrown in-between every now and then.--Krystaleen 16:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree in principle with rewording, but "Christian rock" is not accurate. His first two albums were what the industry referred to as middle of the road or MOR. It was neither traditional nor rock, it was simply contemporary. It was not until The Big Picture that he broke away from the pack, but it was still not pure rock. AllMusic has it right when they list it, and probably all of the next albums, as pop/rock. Reclassifying the recent years is also worthwhile, but his recent work is less pop and more pure CCM, although that genre covers a great variety of music.

Some biographies of bands use albums as logical breaks, but that would likely create too many small paragraph. Other bios use eras (80s, 90s, etc.) and that's the way I would suggest going. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was just reading some of the old articles and it seems that he was often referred to as "Christian rocker Michael W. Smith" in the 80s and early 90s. But yeah MOR probably describes his early albums more accurately. "Beginning" technically would cover his 2 first albums and then "Christian rock" would describe his next ones. So "Beginning and Christian rock era" would cover Project, 2, The Big Picture, and I 2 (eye). What do you think? Or would you prefer "Christian Pop Rock"?

As for his more recent works, let's see, since 2000 he's made 4 worship-oriented album, Worship, Worship Again, A New Hallelujah, and Sovereign. I don't think Healing Rain, Stand, and Wonder can be classified as worship, CCM yes, worship no. They even contain several secular love songs. Healing Rain in particular I think is pretty poppy and imo is closer to "Inspirational" than CCM. And then there are 2 Christmas albums It's a Wonderful Christmas and The Spirit of Christmas; and 2 instrumental albums Freedom and Glory. Hm okay it's too all over the place to break down by eras/phases so I think your suggestion of breaking it down by years is the only way to go. Now which years to lump together is another question. Sigh I guess this revamping thing is gonna take a while to figure out.--Krystaleen 09:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Years would satisfy WP:NPOV more than adjectives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So you suggest to drop the whole Christian Rock/Pop header altogether? But I think if we have "Mainstream venture" for the second era and "Worship music" for the next one, we should at least mention what his music was before going mainstream/worship route, no?--Krystaleen 13:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You've already pointed out that the eras are not accurate, singling-out "worship" for recent efforts.

I looked briefly at some bands with longevity: Earth, Wind & Fire, Chicago (band), The Doobie Brothers and The Rolling Stones. They don't compare in popularity or style, simply longevity, although they have been around for at least a decade more than Smith. They use years alone or years with a theme. The Beach Boys are an interesting case. The article uses years, with descriptions, but also sub-headings that discuss specific albums, however, those albums allow for referenced content that discuss each album in details.

Alternately, look at the feature articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pop music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music. Use them as examples (50 pop, 75 rock). Alternately good articles and above, but there are more 1000 across the two projects.

I'll let you decide on heading titles though, but use what are considered good articles rather than what's currently here as your benchmark. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The project list linking appears to be broken. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The categories work: Category:FA-Class Rock music articles and Category:FA-Class Rock music articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I sort of confused myself. But I was planning to keep the "Mainstream venture" for his early 90s stuff and "Instrumental & Worship" for his early 2000 stuff. So maybe something like "Mainstream venture and Inspirational albums (1990-1999)" and "Instrumental and worship albums (2000-2003)" followed by "CCM era (2004-2007)". Now I don't know where and how to fit A New Hallelujah and Wonder. Can't really fit them into the respective eras because of the years they were released, and I don't think they're worth their own section either.

Also, since 2012 he keeps churning out Worship-themed albums so some of the headings would be repetitive. I'm thinking of putting Glory together with Hymns and Sovereign and so the heading would be "Instrumental and worship albums" again, albeit with different years. And I just realized that if his next album is more CCM than worship then he has a steady pattern now. And thanks for the links, I'll check them out.--Krystaleen 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Worship

Worship (2000) was definitely an "all-Christian" album, but it certainly wasn't his first one as this article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B11B:F920:D40E:6245:45:C4FF (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Which album of his was all Christian before that one?--Krystaleen 01:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Every song with a lyric on his very first album (MWS Project) had Christian references. Even if you're ruling out instrumental music, the instrumental tracks on his first Christmas CD all had Christian lyrics associated with them. 24.31.5.26 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to all-worship. You would have a WP:NPOV argument on your hands if you couldn't support that with a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean me or the IP editor? I'm pretty sure I wasn't the one who wrote it, but I agreed with it so I left it there when I edited the career section. IIRC all his albums prior to Worship have at least one song that's not about God or Christianity. Some are even secular love songs. Although yes that's probably would be considered original research. Idk about not neutral though since in my opinion, the more variety of topics an artist covers, the better. It means they're more versatile too. I don't see anything negative about it, quite the opposite even.--Krystaleen 12:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not a RS, which is why one would have to be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not really an issue as to whether or not it's better or worse. It's a question of whether or not the statement is accurate. 24.31.5.26 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Which, it was. It is still accurate now but it was accurate then that it was his first all-Christian album. The only problem was that it's original research, and that there was no reliable source. You can't really classify an instrumental piece as a definite Christian or secular song, especially with titles like "Sonata in D Major", "Wings of the Wind", "Ashton", etc. I'm not sure if Christmas albums count, but even if it does, there's "First Snowfall". Look I'm not disputing the change, it was warranted because it had no source. I'm just pointing out it's not far from truth at all.--Krystaleen 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, yeah, "Ashton" is only based on one of the most popular Christian fiction novels of all time, but I guess that doesn't count. Whatever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.31.5.26 (talk) 10:32, February 1, 2015‎

Well, never heard of it. Must be from before my time. By the way I love how you conveniently ignore the other songs.--Krystaleen 11:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's stay civil. If you were alive in 1986, it wasn't before your time. Perhaps we can put the idea of a sacred and secular dualism aside as the copy no longer exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No I wasn't alive then, wasn't born yet, so yeah figured it was before my time. But thanks for the info, that book sounds interesting, maybe there's an e-book copy somewhere I could buy. Anyway actually I did google for "Ashton" before putting it above, but only got results about Ashton Kutcher so I just assumed it was a name and MWS was using someone he knew as an ispiration for a song, I mean he has songs called "Anna", "Emily", "Leesha", etc, so it wasn't a huge leap. Anyway it's funny one would get worked up over this, I mean really? Come on now. It's not like I was bashing the guy. Actually the only reason I'm into this guy's music is precisely because of the variety of topics he covers. Or else I would've been into the other Christian artists as well. I wish he'd go back to his pop roots, especially his 90s albums, pre-Worship. I mean Change Your World, Live The Life, and This Is Your Time are still his best work to date, along with Healing Rain.--Krystaleen 02:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was named after a person until I read the interview. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael W. Smith. 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/20141009165812/http://pro.boxoffice.com/articles/2012-09-seabourne-pictures-after to http://pro.boxoffice.com/articles/2012-09-seabourne-pictures-after

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) 06:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael W. Smith. 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/20140729213545/http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/michael-w-smith/features/gloria-in-excelsis/ to http://www.todayschristianmusic.com/artists/michael-w-smith/features/gloria-in-excelsis/

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) 14:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Live albums and guitar

I think we need a discussion for these 2 things:

1. Guitar. I'm a bit on the fence but I think it should be listed as his main instruments, after keyboard and piano of course. He plays it a lot. In the studio, on albums, etc and he usually plays guitar for about 1/4 to 1/3 of his shows.
2. His new upcoming live album Surrounded features all new songs, just like his previous ones Worship, Worship Again, and A New Hallelujah. Those 3 are listed here on the discography section of this main page so why not Surrounded?

That's it for now.--Krystaleen 05:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have not seen him play guitar, but then again I have not seen him perform in over a decade. If that's the case, feel free to add it.

Not sure about the songs for his Surrounded album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay I've done some changes. Thanks.--Krystaleen 05:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree about including the guitar. He mentioned/discussed that in his most recent interview on TBN regarding the new album. 2600:1702:1690:E10:94D2:A5CE:DA7:64AD (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

TBN/Concerts/Tours/sources

Why doesn't this article mention notable appearances on Christian networks such as Praise on TBN as sources? Currently airing: MWS on "The Farm" in Nashville (2018 video premiere, interview about personal life, father's death, projects/albums, etc.) on TBN. Are there no reliable cites or is no one working this article aware of them? Even if past interviews can't be sourced about new material, as recent as this month he's featured on Praise about his two new pop/worship album releases (mentioned within the article already). While I know some of the information included in this article are accurate (song/album titles, etc.) there are no sources for them. Meaning if someone challenged it (spelling or otherwise) or added new material, if no source was given it would be deleted yet this article is missing some from previous entries. And over the years he has toured all over. Many articles for musicians mention this within the specific album sections, discography or they are listed. Someone as well-known as him should have more details about tours (I saw one or two early Amy Grant ones that aren't sourced), notable interviews where he first discusses new album releases, projects, etc. Please do not ask me to take care of it. There are allot of lazy contributors only deleting/reverting things they don't like that are legit or giving orders yet they won't put in the time to actually include constructive information or fix problems. I may or may not respond to anyone who gives input. This is just more of an "fyi" and rhetorical question about what's lacking and needs improving. In all fairness, articles must follow the same guidelines (be consistent). P.S. I do not communicate with anyone who has a bad attitude or is a bossy know-it-all so be kind/professional if giving suggestions. 2600:1702:1690:E10:94D2:A5CE:DA7:64AD (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's idea of notability is that there are secondary sources that discuss it. Are there any of those for his appearances there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)