Talk:Steve Earle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fulham football[edit]

If you have come here from Fulham football club's website, this is obviously not thright place to be. there is no steve earle (footballer) webpage yet, but if someone was to sort out a disambig. page we'd be very grateful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.242.127 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 December 2004

John Walker's Blues[edit]

Who is the Qari at the end of the John Walker blues song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.184.54 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 9 October 2005

Outlaw country[edit]

The Outlaw country article makes a couple of references to Earle as having an Outlaw country ethos. Earle's article here doesn't reciprocate. Just thought I'd make that observation and leave it in hands here, more knowledgeable about Earle than I. --Ds13 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see he is actually in that article twice, I'd keep the ref. of him in the company of Guy Clark and Townes Van Zandt, and avoid suggesting that he has much in common with Hank III. -MrFizyx 17:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has removed Earle from the Outlaw Country article. I am not an expert here, but would think that he should be there, even if he also fits other genres. I am going to ask the question in the discussion there, but folks might want to weigh in. 131.238.30.145 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio show title[edit]

I removed the statement that Earle's radio show is titled "The Revolution Starts Now." Maybe it was called that at some time in the past, but according to the Air America website, it's called "The Steve Earle Show." I didn't think this title was worth mentioning in the article. Frumpet 01:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is apparently referring to his old Air America show. His new show on Sirius is called Hardcore Troubadour. He switched from one to the other back in June 2007.--Larrybob (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the recorded intro of his SiriusXM show, a voice that sounds like Mojo Nixon's says, "It's The Steve Earle Show! Hardcore Troubadour Radio." Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Star?[edit]

This is awkward

One summer evening after seeing a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, Earle went backstage and was given the advice of his life. A story that Earle repeats to this day is that "[Ronnie] Van Zant took his necklace off and put around my neck and said, 'Boy, if you work hard enough and believe in yourself, then you too can become a rock star someday.'" This advice was something that would turn out to be true, as Steve released his first album, Guitar Town in 1986.

So he became a rock star because he released his first album?

Country Rock and Politics[edit]

Earle's contribution to the Democratic campaign was particularly notable, since country rock is traditionally associated with the right wing.

The "Country Rock" link goes to a page that lists artists who are either anti-right wing (Neil Young, Wilco, Uncle Tupelo, Son Volt) or apolitical (Gram Parsons, Dylan for the last 40 years or so). I don't see any artists that are associated with ther right wing

Omarcheeseboro 21:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, this assertion is dubious. I stuck a {{fact}} tag on it and someone just went and removed it without adding a citation. If nobody adds one shortly I'll remove the sentence since it is plainly questionable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Steve Earle Hard Core Troubadour.ogg[edit]

Image:Steve Earle Hard Core Troubadour.ogg 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 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 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Commons:Image:Steve Earle & Allison Moorer at Bumbershoot 2007.jpg, which I shot, seems to me a better photo of Earle than the one we currently have on the article. However, the current photo is one in which he is more or less alone, and the one I prefer is with his wife, Allison Moorer. Since the case isn't clearcut, and since I can hardly be a neutral judge in this matter, I leave it to someone else to make the decision which photo should illustrate the article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acting[edit]

No mention of his acting role in The Wire in the article?

I removed this: > After Earle's appearance in hit TV show The Wire, it was revealed that his arms are of a below average length, relative to the rest of his body.

Because first of all WTF? Secondly it should be cited and it's not. A google search of Steve Earle arm length didn't help. Thirdly it certainly doesn't belong at the end of his "Bio" section. If somebody wants to add a section on Biological Abnormalities maybe it could go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.192.225 (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal[edit]

Was Steve Earle married to Kelly Walker, making her one of 8 marriages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phylarp (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to both biographies, and several interviews, I have read, Steve has only been married to the women listed here. He has said several times that his marriage to Allison Moorer is his first since getting clean in 1994 (he had re-married Gill when he was arrested, but they divorced a year or so later.) I do remember from the St. John biography that he had a live-in girlfriend in the late 90's, and I think her name was Kelly. Is that the Kelly you refer to? I don't think it lasted long, as he dedicates Transcendental Blues (2000) to Sara, also a girlfriend he never married. What makes you think they were married?

I just checked; according to St. John's book Kelly Walker was his girlfriend and worked for E2. It doesn't say anything about them being married, except that she wanted to get married but he didn't.131.238.31.40 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE at Work[edit]

I'm going to be working on upgrading the grammar and sentence structure, adding refs, removing fan details and external links that don't meet with policy etc. If you have any questions or issues with what I'm doing, please post here or on my talk page so we can communicate and work together. Cheers!--—Keithbob • Talk • 20:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Biographies online: CMT, unofficial web site, All Music, People --—Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resources[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Dear IP 99.43.32.160, Thanks for your interest in this article. I am adding sourced content. Glad to hear you will also be contributing citations from books on the topic. Please remember to include page numbers in the citations. Thanks. I look forward to working together. If you have specific issues, we can discuss them here.--—Keithbob • Talk • 12:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've organized the article in terms of chronology rather than in random sections like writer, actor, political activist which were taken out of the context of his life as it has progressed over the years. That format may be alright for an autobiography (book) but for an encyclopedia such as WP, I feel this this format is more neutral, more objective and more reader friendly. I have sourced quite a lot of the content and look forward to the contributions of others as we progress. I have tagged the sentences that still need sourcing. Thanks for your help.--—Keithbob • Talk • 03:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I will do more when I have a chance and have the books in front of me, which will be later in the month. I am glad to see you have expanded to more than the few bios. My primary concern was that you were reducing it down to three web based bios, which are not always well written or accurate. And as I said, one of the weaknesses of wikipedia, as compared to real encyclopedias written by experts in a field (and I have written for real encyclopedias), is that too often the preferred references are web articles written by journalists or bloggers. I agree that the article needed work, but because of time I had simply been monitoring over the last few years for any major misinformation or BLP issues. I was not involved in writing it initially, by the way, so was not protecting my own work but the work of others.

I don't necessarily agree with the reordering of the article - I think it helps to pull out acting and writing from music. I don't see them random sections, but as three aspects of his work. It also makes the portion on music more cohesive. I think the music section is too stripped down as it stands, but can add to that later. I don't think there was anything there which could not be referenced to recent interviews or other sources. I haven't had a chance to go through all you cut, but some might be added back (which again, was a concern - I think respect for others means going more slowly). I also don't think the 1970-200 periodization works. It makes more sense to break it up based on stages in his life - I would suggest a more substantial music section broken into the following: 1970-85 (pre-breakthrough), 86-94 (pre-jail rockabilly and rock), 95-2001 (post jail rock and exploration of roots music ), and 2002-now (more explicitly political, more folk). As an historian, I know that this is how history is written - periods are based on trends and movements, not arbitrary dates. 1969-1994 would also work, since there is not a lot of public info on the earlier years.

As an immediate BLP issue though, the time in jail is still wrong. He was incarcerated in September 94, and recorded his next record and had it out by early 95, so that simply does not make sense. I have seen a Nashville paper report with the exact release date in Nov 94, but can't find it now. Many sources have this wrong, McGee's book has it correct, St. John's is vague. Even the ones you cite don't say he served a year, but that he was released later that year! (You might want to read more carefully. Edit: I fixed two other similar errors where whet you wrote was incorrect and didn't even agree with the source you were citing.) I think it is because he was sentenced to year, so some sources assumed that and journalists borrow from each other. He also wasn't real quick to correct it, maybe to appear more an outlaw. Also he was still on parole for the year, so technically not free. More recently I saw an interview where he said two months. I suggest until I can get McGee, we don't mention the time, leaving it vague. I will make that one change now. Also, i think the jail time was just drugs, though he did have an earlier weapons and drug charge with probation.

99.43.32.160 (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some other glaring issues

This is full of run-on sentences, as well as disjointed sentences formed from fragmented thoughts. Generally, it reads like a mash up of the earlier article (which I believe was better written. I don’t want to insult you, but feel the need to be blunt. If you are making drastic changes, it should be for the better.) For instance, some references to his activism and writing in the career section seem out of place, and the sentence on the biographies comes out of nowhere. I would suggest either separate sections or more logical connections. At least it should be chronological. The personal life section is also disjointed.

You have completely eliminated reference to Copperhead Road, arguably his best known album, as well as El Corazon.

He’s done a lot of tribute records. Not sure just one should be mentioned (I know that was already an issue.) 71.65.114.219 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making judgements or comments about other editors and their behavior etc. per WP:TALK as it is not helpful to the collaborative process. I think if we keep our comments on the content instead of the contributors we will make better progress together.
Wikipedia belongs to everyone and is a collaborative effort. If you have reliable sources, please add them. If you have good writing skills please improve the grammar and sentence structure. Also remember that on WP all editors are equal. So one's claimed credentials don't carry any weight here. As editors we work together using WP policies and guidelines to improve the project. One guideline is WP:BOLD which says when something is wrong, we fix it to the best of our abilities and we don't need to wait for other editors to approve our edits, this is especially true for BLP's.
WP is based on reliable sources and I have been improving the article in that regard for the last 12 days. That has been my main focus. Once the sources have been fully mined and the content is fully assembled, the sentence structure and format can be massaged to further refine the article.
When I arrived, there had only been 4 edits to the article over the prior 3 months and the last talk page entry was from 2009. The article contained large amounts of unsourced content. I have posted my intentions on the talk page and invited collaboration. I agree the article is not perfect. But like most articles on WP, it is a work in progress and I have been continuing to improve it day by day, as I have time.
Regarding your specific suggestions on content:
I have no objection to making chronological subdivisions with corresponding brief descriptions such as: 1986-1994 Rockabilly and Rock (I'm not sure I agree with the divisions or the text you've suggested but I agree on the concept. Feel free to add those subdivision and I can tweak them or we can discuss further here.
Happy to leave the jail time as you have edited it until we have a consensus among the sources
If you have sourced content on Cooperhead Road and El Corazon please add it, I have no objections
Are saying you want to eliminate mention of the Townes album because its a tribute record? Not sure what you are saying here.
I think we disagree on special sections for Writer and Actor etc. I think we will need a dedicated talk thread to discuss that further and come to an agreement
I appreciate your contributions and additions to the article. Re: the Infobox, we will need to verify those collaborations with sources at some point as I don't believe there is anything about those collaborations in the article at present. But they are OK for now, same goes for the albums he's produced (Baez etc.)
Best wishes,--—Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I am making personal comments, but comments on the changes you have made. You have made erroneous changes which do not reflect the sources you yourself have cited, which in my opinion is a bigger problem than not citing at all, and there are a lot of run-ons. Those are facts, and I was judging the results, not you. I also think the article is much more disorganized, but that is more a matter of opinion. I am not pulling rank (which is a personal accusation), but explaining where I am coming from and defending the changes I suggest. In fact, I feel as if you are pulling rank, but we are probably both oversensitive. I would point out that your comment above is judgement directed mostly at me, not the content. I do have the right to express my opinions about Wikipedia's weaknesses and note that "reliability" needs to be judged more carefully than it often is here. (I have already suggested the sources you are "mining" are not necessarily good sources.) I admit to being frustrated by what I see as unhelpful edits which create additional work for me or other editors to bring the article back to the same level of quality. (I would say the relative lack of recent edits suggests there were no substantial problems.) I was trying to be respectful. Yes, I can make changes and collaborate, but it is a matter of how much time I can find to do that. If I were to "be bold" I would revert the page to the original text and begin adding references, since you say that is your concern, but I would not do that to you. Consider, though, that your work has been that radical a change to the work of others. I don't see the point of removing accurate, relatively well written material rather than finding appropriate references, if the end result is not an improved article. I accept that your work is in good faith and that you care about courtesy, but I also think honesty sometimes requires being direct.

To support my point, from the Wiki on verifiability: "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[2] Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[3]" Little if anything you removed fell into the latter category. Furthermore, I am not sure some of what you removed even fits the criteria " material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source." Are you, or would anyone else, seriously challenge the fact that Steve Earle released Copperhead Road? I am fine adding a citation, but that fact was certainly was not a candidate for speedy removal and it is your responsibility as well as mine to consider how removal impacts to the article as a whole. As I said, I have been watching to make sure the most controversial elements, such as his drug use, are well referenced. You might also look back at the section of "Be Bold" that begins "but please be careful."

I suggest you make the changes you wish, trying to address the writing as well as referencing, as I realize you may not have finished. If it flows, I wont challenge your your organization, though still believe it will not be as easy for the reader. I will address the changes in a couple weeks and we can go from there. Please consider using a reference tag rather than removing further information as a way to be respectful of the work others have done. To me, that is part of Wikipedia courtesy. Also, please do not assume I am an inexperienced editor and condescend to me. I do not care to create a page and edit under different ips, but have been here a while (the 131... ip is mine).

On the tribute: I meant the one song on the John Prine tribute record.

You won't find consensus on the jail time, as I have already indicated, because it has been reported incorrectly by many sources. I changed it to reflects what your source actually says, which is vague enough.

On Copperhead Road and El Corazon – I am adding back the text on the albums. I think the onus is on the editor to make sure that the subject remains adequately covered when he or she is removing material. An article on a musician without his bestselling album is not adequate, and the other studio albums are all mentioned. Feel free to tag it and I will get the reference later.

99.43.32.160 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your response. It seems we have unintentionally succeeded in insulting each other. From my end, I apologize, as that was never my intention. Now that we've both said what we had to say, let's move ahead with the content discussions:
For several days I have been adding citation needed tags instead of removing un-cited info, as you have requested. I will continue to do so.
Regarding the tribute on John Prine, I'm still not clear on what's needed. But its not crucial to me. I'm happy to go with your judgement on that. Just make the changes or additions as you desire. I won't object.
Thanks for adding the Cooperhead info. I'll tag it and we can get a citation later.

We are both experienced editors. I'm sure we can work together to improve the article. Thanks for your help and cooperation.--—Keithbob • Talk • 01:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copy editing to clean up the prose. I am planning to investigate more sources but I have a heavy real life work load the next week or two weeks and likely wont' have time to do that until I get a break in 10 days or so. Best, --—Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably get to it this weekend. Again though, I want to emphasize that maintaining the basic content of an article is as important as referencing. If you can't do both, perhaps you could take on something llike this in smaller sections. Leaving it to other editors to replace basic, uncontroversial content is not helpful, in my opinion.The references you were using talk about Copperhead Road, for instance. You could easily add that reference. Hope your work goes well. 99.43.32.160 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad to hear that you'll be adding sourced content when you have time.I'll do the same. Thanks.--—Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did not have time, which is part of why I find this so frustrating. Not sure when I'll get to it. Still think it is your primarly your responsibility to at least maatch the original quality and make sure it covers the subject. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I'm glad that you will be adding citations and sourced content when you have time. I'll do the same as time allows. Thanks for helping to improve the article as your schedule allows.--—Keithbob • Talk • 21:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you are trying to be civil, but I would prefer that you actually acknowledge what I have said. This seems like false sincerity covering up dismissal of my views, which is what comes across when you ignore the meat of what I express. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fearless Heart was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Associated Acts[edit]

  • This field is for professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career.
  • This field can include, for example, any of the following:
    • For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
    • Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together
    • Groups which have spun off from this group
    • A group from which this group has spun off
  • The following uses of this field should be avoided:
    • Association of groups with members' solo careers
    • Groups with only one member in common
    • Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
    • One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
    • Groups that are merely similar
  • How do these compare to the criteria given above?
    • Joan Baez- Earle produced Baez album
    • Allison Moore (wife)--Appears on at least two of his albums, tours with him
    • Del McCoury Band-- Earle made an album with them
    • Justin Townes Earle (son)
    • Stacy Earle (sister) --She sang background vocals on an early album or two, yes?
    • Guy Clark--Earle appeared on a few songs for one album. right?
    • Townes Van Zandt--mentor
    • Buddy Miller

Any thoughts, comments or additional info about the extent of Earle's collaborations with the above? Thanks.--—Keithbob • Talk • 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Has there been explicit rejection in forming those criteria of family connections that are also professional? Of mentoring? I think that these add weight. Townes and Clark are more influential on Earle (and he on his son) than Del McCoury, for instance, even if McCoury fits the examples better. The two men were formative for him, and he says so repeatedly. (Though he, Townes and Guy Clark do have a live album and he did tour with both at times as a young man.) More generally, the criteria (though actually they are labled as examples, a big difference) seem to be written with bands, rather than singer-songwriter acts, in mind, and the relationships are different. Years spent hanging out playing music together (as is documented in Heartworn Highways) before they were well known may not appear to be important, but can be "significant and notable to this artist's career." I think you are going on the letter rather than the spirit of the "criteria" in removing most these, especially Guy, Townes, JTE and Moorer. Notice thet the criteria are examples, it does not exclude other relatiosnhips (such as mentoring) execpt those in the second list. (Which do seem to rule out Baez, though I think the connection goes beyond one album.) Joan Baez- Earle produced Baez album also have appeeared together at activist events, and she has recorded several of his songs, including two he wrote for her to sing[reply]

Allison Moore (wife)--Appears on at least two of his albums, tours with him MOORER - not Moore - has toured off and on since 2004, and appeared on several albums and single projects, produced one of her albums

Del McCoury Band-- Earle made an album with them and toured, had one song on an album before the collaboration - fits clearly

Justin Townes Earle (son) collaborated on a couple songs, JTE was briefly in his band as a teen, clear influence on JTE's career

Stacy Earle (sister) --She sang background vocals on an early album or two, yes? and on one later album, and toured with him in his band as instrumentalist, as did her husband later. Got her start in his band.

Guy Clark--Earle appeared on a few songs for one album. right? toured in Guy's band as a young man, mentor, live album, often tied together for spcial events like Townes memorial, wrote together as young songwriters for Sunbury,

Townes Van Zandt--mentor, briefly in his band. Almost any substantive article on Earle by music critics brings up the relationship.

Buddy Miller''touring band for El Corazon, have appeared on other songs together 99.43.32.160 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep in mind that the Associated Acts guideline refer specifically to the items listed in the Infobox. No one is saying that other significant musical or biographical relationships can't be included in the body of the article. --—Keithbob • Talk • 14:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also keep in mind the purpose of the Infobox: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. .The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.--—Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you disagree with everything I said? I don't see any engagement with my points, which is something I have felt much of this discussion. (Engagement, not agreement. There is no "we" above, despite the use of first person plural, just you talking at me.) Are you really interested in consensus? I don't think the four artists I empahasized - Townes, Guy, Moorer and JTE, plus McCoury - are too many for a reader to digest. It is also not extreme compared to many other artist sites. In any case, this conversation is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic - until the article is restored and reflects a good coverage of the subject, the box should not be a focus.65.185.126.6 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, out of the 8 names currently listed in the infobox and discussed above, only Allison Moorer and Del McCoury Band belong in the Assocated Acts portion of the info box based on the criteria given here. Since we [don't] seem to have much common ground on this I've asked for a third opinion to get some outside input.--—Keithbob • Talk • 22:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No we do not have common ground. I have tried to compromise, I don't see that from you. (Neither did we "agree" about the source question, you glossed over and ignored the disagreement and summed it up as agreement.) I really find it frustrating that you refuse to actually engage what I have said but read what I write as agreement with you. You seem to expect me to again give in, especially about mentorships and family relationships being important, without even engaging my points (which I have put in bold above, and which do directly engage your re-appeal to the "criteria"). As far as I can tell, you did not even read what I wrote. Let me restate, and perhaps you can engage. Almost any substantial article on Earle written in the last ten years mentions Townes, and many mention Guy as well. They are "significant and notable to this artist's career," even if mentorship is not one of the examples above, and as such I believe they belong in the infobox as well as the article. (Again, the list above gives examples, not criteria.) As I said above, Townes and Guy are much more significant to his career than McCoury, and certainly as significant as if they had been in a band together. The nature of their work means that the relationships look different than for bands, for which the examples seem to be written. And just because a friend of yours comes on to agree does not mean your judgement is verified. Genuine consensus means engaging others, not out-voting them. Form the wiki on consensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." Are you willing to consider my concerns legitimate? I do not feel that is the case. . 65.185.126.6 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry I left out the word "don't" in my prior post above (which I've now corrected). My position is that relationships and mentorships have a rightful place in the article (assuming they are cited to reliable sources) but the infobox has a specialized purpose (highlights) and narrowly defined usage (brevity). I feel that there should be two associated acts in the infobox while you feel that all 7-8 names have a rightful place there. Since as you have said above "we do not have common ground" and don't seem to be making any progress towards a compromise despite our respective comments to each other, I am taking recourse to the first step recommended in Resolution processes called WP:3 which says: "Third opinion is a simple means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between editors. When editors do not agree, any of the editors may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors in the discussion in order to be successful." This process includes listing the dispute on the Third Opinion page and waiting for a random editor(s) to respond. Wikipedia is not a WP:Battleground and so there are methods to avoid the frustration and emotion of two editors going head to head on an article. This is one of those processes. If you wish to participate you can place a summary of your 'viewpoint' in the section below. Thanks for your patience and participation in this collaborative, community process.--—Keithbob • Talk • 19:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A third opinion might not be necessary if we could compromise. I offered one. That you think I am suggesting "all 7-8 are necessary" shows that you have not, in fact, given my opinion the serious consideration I have given yours. I have suggested the most important are Townes, Moorer and Clark. That is three, not 7-8, though McCoury would be four. JTE would be another, but I recognize that the influence is unidirectional, so it mmight go on JTE's page but not Steve's. On another note, I do not have patience for you to thank. I am increasingly frustrated by what I feel is disrespect on your part, despite the language of sincerity. Could you please explain (beyond keeping the box info brief) why you think Townes, especially, is not significant. This IS a highlight, given the emphasis placed on their relationship by Earle and those writing on Earle. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that the feelings of frustration and disrespect are mutual. But rather than point fingers I prefer to move forward in as cordial and productive a way as possible. I'm sure you feel the same. So let's continue as best we can.--—Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I prefer honesty and directness. For me, polite words without honest disagreement and engagement seem false. Also, though I know I don't always do it well, I really am criticizing the work, not you as a person. There has to be some room for constructive criticism on both sides. (And you have been no less critical, in your own way.) Moving on for me would require a commitment to respond to the meat of each other's points. Can we do that? I do feel that, for the most part, I have given you that courtesy. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Issue: Which names should remain in the Associated Acts section of the Infobox? At present there are eight names there: Joan Baez, Justin Townes Earle, Guy Clark, Townes Van Zandt, Del McCoury Band, Stacey Earle, Buddy Miller, Allison Moorer. Which names, if any, should be removed?

czarkoff (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Keithbob
According to WP the purpose of the infobox is in "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance" and "the less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Specific guidelines for the Associated Acts template can be seen here. In my opinion only Allison Moorer and the Del McCoury Band meet the criteria given and the remaining 6 names should be removed from the infobox and discussed as appropriate in the body of the article (supported by reliable sources). On the other hand, my fellow editor feels that all eight names should remain in the infobox.--—Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viewpoint by IP 65.185.126.6
I have expressed two primary arguments. First, what Keithbob is calling criteria are examples of a general principle; it does not exclude other relationships (such as mentoring or family relationships) except those in the second list. (Note it says "This field can include, for example, any of the following.") The overall criteria is that associated acts should be ""significant and notable to this artist's career." The examples seem to be written with bands, rather than singer-songwriter acts, in mind, and the relationships are different but no less substantial.
Second, of the artists listed, Townes van Zandt and Guy Clark fit this general principle better than any of the other names. They are certainly more influential on Earle than Del McCoury, even if McCoury fits the examples better. The two men were formative for Earle, and he says so repeatedly in interviews. Almost any substantial article on Earle written in the last ten years mentions Townes, and many mention Guy as well. Also, Earle, van Zandt and Guy Clark have a live album together, he toured with both as a young man, and appears on Clark's first album. I don't see a reason to limit the box to one or two, but if that is the limit, Guy Clark and Townes van Zandt are much more significant in influencing Earle's career and art than either Moorer or McCoury. As I said above, I think family connections also add weight, but in terms of influence, Steve is probably more significant to the careers of Moorer and Justin Townes Earle than they are to his carer. My suggestion would be these five: Van Zandt, Clark, Moorer, McCoury, JT Earle, in decreasing order of importance. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion by czarkoff
In my opinion this list is particularly unhelpful. While this field was supposed to contain the list of groups one was member of, it is used to list associated persons one would need to read the article to identify relation with. So in my opinion all of the names should be removed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

OK, I've removed the three names that all of us agree should not be there: Baez, Stacey Earle, Buddy Miller. How shall we proceed on the remaining five? IP 65 what are your suggestions now that we have a third opinion?--—Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I think this is secondary to getting the article back in shape. But I am not convinced by the third opinion, as I see no extensive discussion on the template talk page of the original intention of the category. (In fact, the earliest versions of the template are more general.) Personally, I find it useful to have associated acts on an artist's page, as it gives a sense of where they come from, and I think the box is still concise. I do think that if we are going to have the category, Townes and Guy are the most "significant and notablle" to Earle's career. Your concern seems to be the number - how may do you think is too many? 65.185.126.6 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is both the number and the association per the description in the template. I had suggested McCoury and Moorer as the ones meeting the intended use of that part of the template but I'm open to compromise. What if we listed Townes, Guy and McCoury? Does that seem like a reasonable compromise?--—Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a few weeks since I posted this, so I'm going to go ahead with the compromise suggested above. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at RSN[edit]

I've inquired about the validity of a source at RSN. All are invited to join the discussion by clicking here. Best, --—Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at RSN is that it is not a reliable source per WP:RS so I will remove it from the article. Thanks to all those that participated in the discussion.--—Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you also remove the CMT source, or at least not use it as your primary source? 65.185.126.6 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you question the CMT source you are welcome to open a thread at the Reliable Source noticeboard to get community input. As for it being the primary source, that's a good point and I am actively looking for additional sources and have added two new sources (NPR and Chicago Sun-Times) this week. I think overtime this situation will balance itself out as I find more sources to reinforce or replace the predominance of citations by All Music and CMT. Also please keep in mind that when I arrived at the article 6 weeks ago it had only 20 citations and now it has 54 citations which is more in accord with WP's policy on verifiability which says: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." I am working to slowly adding citations and verifiable text to this article. I hope you can join the expansion process when you have time.--—Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I have said suggests that I think citations are unimportant or that I don't understand wikipedia's policy. (In fact, note that I did point to some aspects of that policy you may have been underemphasizing.) Also, I am not using original research in any way. I appreciate that you are trying to add sources. Yet good article status is not just based on number of citations. The quality of the sources, coverage of the topic, and writing are equally important. I don't see you acknowledging those issues, except to suggest restoring content and writing style is my responsibility if I am concerned about them. I see coverage of the topic as something an editor must take on if he or she is making drastic changes. Doubly so when information is being lost. It wasn't a perfect article before, but it did cover the topic well and generally flowed. The most controversial claims were referenced, and thus there was no need for widescale deletion of basic information such as including the artist's best known album. Also, references are not helpful if they do not accurately reflect the sources used. I realize you see it as a work in progress, but in the mean time the article has a lot more problems, including some erroneous changes which I corrected. Had I not, there would be erroneous iormation for several months. I am sorry if I am repeating, in fact we both are, but I can't tell if you have heard what I am expressing. I do thank you for shifting to using reference tags, rather than deleting, and for looking for better sources. I am not interested in getting involved in a metaconversation about CMT, but let's minimize its use.

One more comment about sourcing... when we were discussing the unofficial site, I did not think we were discussing the archive. I see that as different. I think those articles are valid, since it is clearly sourced (different from the unreferenced list of awards, for instance.) Can we keep those references so as not to lose that information? Ideally, it would be good track down the the article in the original publication (for one thing the unofficial site is probably in copyright violation), but that would let us know where to look. For instance, Earle's essay on witnessing Noble's execution is here: http://www.utne.com/GreatWriting/Steve-Earle-A-Death-in-Texas/2001-01-01/Archives.aspx. Rather than deleting, lets find the original. 65.185.126.6 (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but continuing to discuss the prior version of the article from 6 weeks ago, before I began editing the article, is unhelpful to the process of moving the article forward. I disagree with your characterization of my good faith, changes to the article but I'm not interested in trying to change your mind and will not respond to any further comments in that regard. If you feel that I have violated WP policy in some way, please bring it up at the the Administrators noticeboard or other appropriate venue.
RE: sources, my understanding is that WP does not consider articles that are copied or reprinted on another web site to be reliable sources and we cannot link to the web site that has reprinted them without permission as this is a copyright violation per WP:CV as you have mentioned. So that's two reasons why we cannot cite or link to OUSE Ie its not a reliable source and it engages in copyright violations. However, if an editor can access the original copies of those articles then they can be cited as sources, as you have suggested.
RE: Earle's article about the death row inmate, I removed only the citation to OUSE for the reason's above. I left the text intact and put a cite needed tag there. I'm glad you were able to find a source and cite the text. Good work.--—Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drugs/Arrest/Prison/Rehab etc[edit]

I'm just storing things here for now:

  • "Steve Earle's vivid character sketches became more overtly political after he spent time in prison on drug charges."--NPR, Dec 7, 2003
  • "In 1994, Earle was arrested and sent briefly to prison for possession of narcotics. He was paroled later that year after completing a rehabilitation program." CMT Bio
  • "On New Years' Eve, he was arrested in Dallas for assaulting a security guard at his own concert. He was charged with aggravated assault, fined 500 dollars, and given a year's unsupervised probation." All Music
  • "He had several run-ins with the law, including a 1994 arrest in Nashville for possession of heroin. Although sentenced to a year in jail, Earle served time in rehab instead, and the treatment worked. Earle was released from the rehab center in late 1994 and began working again. All Music
  • Interview: INSKEEP: Because you were in prison....Mr. EARLE: I was on the street and then in jail--NPR Interview, Steve Inskeep, 2003
  • After being released from jail in the late '94---Steve Earle: life in the key of G.(blues guitarist records new album, 'Train A Comin shortly after release from jail in late 1994)

Guitar Player, October 1, 1995 | Russell, Rusty

  • It's been two years since Steve Earle cleaned up his act, got out of jail"..---STEVE EARLE EL CORAZON E-Squared/Warner Bros., The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), November 20, 1997 | Doug Warren
  • But Earle's appetite for success was exceeded only by his appetite for cocaine, heroin and self-destruction. When the explosive live document "Shut Up and Die Like an Aviator" came out in 1991, it hit like the last clap of thunder from a fast-fading storm. MCA dumped him. Three years of drug-induced silence followed..............When Earle was sentenced to jail on drug charges in 1994 there was some relief, but no surprise. --Bluegrass' prodigal father and son; Steve earle pays homage to the late Bill Monroe., The Boston Herald, July 30, 1999 | Convey, Kevin R.
  • A Criminal Court judge agreed last week to release Earle from jail after he served 60 days of an 11-month, 29-day sentence for possessing heroin. The judge ordered Earle, 39, to complete an outpatient drug treatment program at Cedarwood Center in Hendersonville. Earle's attorney said the singer had been "hurting" because of withdrawal from methadone, which he had been taking for 14 months to combat an addiction to heroin.---EARLE MOVED TO DRUG CENTER, The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY),November 3, 1994
  • A judge sentenced Steve Earle to a year in jail for possessing a small amount of heroin. Earle, 39, was sentenced Friday after he failed to appear in court for a hearing. The country-rock singer earlier admitted to the possession. Lawyer Lionel Barrett said his client was in a drug treatment program at the time of the hearing.---EARLE TREATMENT, The Buffalo News (Buffalo, NY),September 9, 1994
  • Earle notoriously spent four months in jail before kicking heroin in 1994. --

SWEETHEARTS OF THE ALT-COUNTRY RODEO; Steve Earle and Allison Moorer take their marriage on the road after resettling in New York City.(ENTERTAINMENT), Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN),March 9, 2008 , Riemenschneider, Chris

  • By the early '90s, Earle was more legendary for his drug addiction and scrapes with the law than his music. In 1993, he was arrested for heroin possession. In 1994, he was arrested for possession of crack cocaine. He spent eight weeks in jail, half of which were in a drug rehabilitation program. --STEVE EARLE KEEPS ON MAKING MUSIC ON HIS OWN TERMS, Albany Times Union (Albany, NY), January 14, 1996, WAYNE BLEDSOE
  • --—Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His niece, Emily Earle, was a contestant on The Voice[edit]

I listened to his SiriusXM show earlier this morning. The episode was new; it's the one in which Brandi Carlile and members of her band were guests. He told of how his son, John Henry, took his first steps on the tour bus which was parked outside of The House of Blues in Houston (if I recall correctly) while he and Allison Moorer were inside the venue. He said that his niece, Emily Earle, was John Henry's nanny on that tour and that she's a singer-songwriter who appeared on The Voice. (Who knows whether her parent is Steve Earle's sibling or his cousin, though.) I'm posting this because her name might be worthy of being added to the section about his personal life (if not now, maybe sometime in the future). Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can add things, with a reference, but she is not well known. She is the daughter of his second oldest brother Mark. I don't have a reference though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.224.53 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Earle if coming out with a new album GUY, that is a tribute to Guy Clark, similar to TOWNES, on March 29th, 2019. [1]Leifpotvin (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stephen L. Betts, "Steve Earle Covers Guy Clark’s ‘Dublin Blues’ for Tribute Album ‘Guy’"

Daughter?[edit]

The source linked to say Jessica Baker is Earle's daughter is an unsourced aggregation site. More researched sources, like the St. John biography, indicate the claim was made but she was never acknowledged by Earle nor was paternity established using DNA. Presenting it as fact here seems inappropriate. It might be noted, but seems more like gossip than biography. It is also a recent edit. 131.238.215.0 (talk)131.238.215.0 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to whitewash it. The citation to which you refer belongs to music journalist Tom Roland. I see nothing at WP:RSN about it and I'm not sure why you believe it is "an unsourced aggregation site". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not proven fact? I think Roland got it from a site which said there was a relationship and a daughter was born. That is factual, or at least they had an encounter, but it is not proven fact that the daughter is Earle's. Roland is a journalist, but he is aggregating not sourcing all his details. Do we include claims by groupies on every artist's page? This is not sugar coating, just wanting accuracy.
Would you object if I simply changed it to say Baker claimed the daughter was his? User:Chris Troutman 131.238.30.208 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: In 1987, he had a brief relationship with a groupie, Theresa Baker, who had subsequently had a child (Jessica Montana Baker) which she claimed was Earle's. 131.238.30.208 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reliable source making the statement. Information in most journalism is not directly sourced, whereas in places like wiki, items are sourced or may be challenged. There are legal remedies which the subject of the article may utilize to refute such public claims. In this case, there are two citations, the db and the biography, which have overlapping statements with some divergences. Both can be presented with proper sourcing to the page within the St. John book. Leave out any claims of not having a DNA test, as that neither proves or disproves anything. There is no acknowledgment, yet is there any denial? Luckily we do not have to make any judgement on either; we just makes entries based on what other people have written. The latter phrasing used seems reasonable if we can get that citation added, keeping Roland whilst adding St. John. Honestly, although I do not like Roland's database, there is no argument it is not reliable. (Note: I did not place the original statement, just formatted the cite and placed it into the proper chronological order.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Earle&oldid=1205592006"