Talk:Keith Green

The Crash
I removed the language that suggested there was something wrong with the way Last Days Ministries mentions the airplane crash. LDM doesn't have some sort of obligation to say, "By the way, the crash was all Keith's fault because he insisted everyone cram into the plane." The article states that the plane belonged to LDM, that Keith organised the flight, and that it crashed because it was overweight. 'Nuff said, really. Holford 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I further removed the same stuff, after others removed all sorts of other POV piled on this the last couple of days. If someone is of the opinion that the statement of the facts of the crash are insufficient, then this would be the appropriate forum for discussing that. Holford 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the NTSB Report of Crash link. Therein should be enough NPOV material. To be fair, the pilot's utter lack of professionalism is what led up to this crash, coupled with the lack if even a pretense of pre-flight planning.Lowellt 04:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Holford 20:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the NTSB report again. Two facts were wrong in the crash section: the weight and the number of seats. I changed to reflect.Mdoc7 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, found the original source for the initial submission: http://www.search.com/reference/Keith_Green (some of which facts are wrong and corrected here) Mdoc7 20:54, 31 July 2000 (UTC)

...and here: http://keith-green.biography.ms/ Appears a lot of the text is a direct copy from either or both. Mdoc7 21:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Misc
The songs previously referred to as praise choruses do not fit the definitions of that genre in any way. They are hymns and are included in some recent hymnals.

I also changed back the term "Evangelicalism" to "Christianity". Keith may have been an Evangelical, but his devotion was not to Evangelicalism. I removed the use of quotation marks inserted to lower the credibility of statements. These are some a series of edits here an elsewhere by the anonymous 82.143.162.72 who seems to go around various Christianity-related articles with bags full of quotation marks, liberally scattering them around. Holford 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I put the quotes back in around "small, colorful magazine" and clarified the language. The purpose of the quotes in this case was not to lower the credibility of this statement, but to quote the magazine's description of itself.  This was my edit - I started the paragraph about the magazine as I felt it deserved a mention.  I don't know anything about any of the other quotes in the paragraph, but they do seem to add a negative POV as they are apparently taken out of context. H2O 20:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a testimony of a former CIA assassin who broke down in guilt and admitted that her and other CIA killed Keith by rigging his plane. Read it here: http://www.geocities.com/ron_garon/062901.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.134.89 (talk)

Although I think if he was murdered it was by the Vatican in Rome for Keith's anticatholic stance. Which could line up with this Ex CIA, Ex High priestess in a satanic cult being that Jesuits are into satanism also and could be doing it within Satanic, CIA, covert operations as a smokescreen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.134.89 (talk)


 * Totally bunk, of the same type as the Chick/Alberto fiasco. Nonsense. We don't need it. Mdoc7 01:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Why is it totally bunk? Ignorance protrudes evidently. Research the facts they bring to light.


 * That was bizarre to read. What would either the Vatican or the CIA gain by pulling that one?

Keith Green had a lot of influence and during the time of ecumenical manipulations through the chrazismatic movement such as kathryn kuhlman etc, they could not let him sway the populace of believers under his influence. Thus before it was published he needed to be silenced WAVY 10 14:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why was this assassination claim never reported to the law? Considering the common belief is that the plane had several more passengers than it could, and crashed from being overloaded, the assassin should have done the just thing, and confessed her guilt not to the author of some website, but to the police.  Failing that, the website owner should have given this information to the law. At the least, Melody Green deserves to be told the truth.  Otherwise, the whole story sounds bogus, as if it is a wholesale story, part of some website's Satanist conspiracy scare. 98.240.250.74 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
Any chance we could remove the quote about going to college? Either that or expand it? I'm pretty sure I have the talk where the quote came from on CD and I think such a small excerpt from a longer speech doesn't really do his talk justice. The quote just sounds silly and/or makes Keith sound kind of crazy and the whole talk (if i remember correctly) was more about people who go to college without a direction or reason for going along with people who simply just say they're working/studying for the glory of God when really they aren't.

Of course I could be way off, if someone has some audio or an article where he stated that quote without all i've just said, I would love to hear it.

Tiburon 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it came from one of the Last Days tracts. I think that is the source mentioned. I agree that it is out of context. Holford 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of context of what? The world? If it seems out of context, it is because of preconceived ideas. Take the out quote, or leave it in. The pro of taking it out is that it's not for the heathen, it's for the Christians. The con: the Christians won't see it, either. I would take it out, but all it is is a quote, so there need be no expounding, hence leave it in. Your choice. The quote comes from here: http://www.lastdaysministries.org/nations/whyyoushouldgo.html Mdoc7 04:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't put things in Wikipedia because they are for heathens or Christians, or because their inclusion or exclusion is reflective of any POV. I should have encyclopedic value, providing a better understanding of the subject from a NPOV. --Holford 04:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I did another major clean up. Still needs more work. Holford 10:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Early Life
In the article for Keith Green it states that:

Green went on to play "Kurt Von Trapp" in a major production of The Sound of Music

but it does not specify when, where or what format (stage, movie, ...) Does anyone know the specifics regarding this reference?

If someone has the 'No Comprimise' book, it goes into details there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.49 (talk)


 * I obligingly added as suggested. I have the No Compromise book.  The addition goes with the flow of the paragraph.  Mdoc7 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The way the first para was originally written gave the misleading implication that the quotations given were from a Los Angeles Times newspaper article. No such quotes were found in the newspaper archives (they have a very good search engine); but they are found in the No Compromise book. Only the phrase "Eight-year-old" is indeed found in a Los Angeles Times article that contains Keith Green's picture, but that article is an anouncement of an upcoming event of a live theater performance, not a review of a past event (as indicated in the No Compromise book, where most phrases are found). The fact that the phrases were not found in the archive search, but were found in the book, suggests that the quotes were from a LOCAL review that is not a part of the newspaper (such as The Parade Magazine insert of the Sunday Washington Post, which is not a physical part of the newspaper). This view makes sense in light of the fact that Chatsworth, where the performance was carried out and covered, is within the provincial boundary limits of Los Angeles. Edited accordingly. Mdoc7 22:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Images
I have just sent the email confirmation to permissions at wikimedia dot org for a bunch of images to be put in here. Mdoc7 01:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Keith's Repentance
There doesn't seem to be anything here about the dark side of Keith's Christian life, his role as a "prophet," and his eventual repentance and denial he was ever called to be one. There is no mention, it seems, of the change to the tone of his music from "No Compromise" to "Songs for the Shepherd." Can someone do a brief, respectful, cited biographical account of this very imortant transformation in his life? The absence of it makes it look like his biography has been deceitfully sterilized to idolize him, and I am certain from having followed Keith's teaching and life that he would be grieviously sickened to be seen in such an artificially glorified way.72.84.68.191 23:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In No Compromise, Melody frames the change leading up to the more worshipful and merciful "Songs for the Shepherd" as one of growth born of Keith's own struggles with his sinful nature. While Keith did repent over some poor attitudes (namely, pride) concerning his prophet motivation, he never rejected that his voice was called to be prophetic. CyberAnth 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember quite clearly reading in one of Keith's newsletters, the one with the "prophet" on the cover looking off disconcertedly to the side with the church in the background, that someone had suggested to him that he was a prophet. He said the person was well meaning, but he also said that person was wrong about that. It wasn't just "an attitude." He genuinely thought he was a Jeremiah/Ezekial class prophet--a prophet of destruction with nothing good to say. There is definitely a difference between the before and after "prophet" if indeed he still thought he was one. The majority of Keith's life was spent seduced by a critical spirit that fortunately culminated in the release of forgiveness and a rightened heart, yet this article brushes it under the rug like it never happened. I think that is deceitfully misleading and subtracts from the reality of who this man was and what he did. One can say horrible things about a man without citing it and it's asked to be removed immediately from Wiki. Once can also create a lie through omission, but is that any less non-NPOV?72.64.52.235 01:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with the view (and the hyper-Charismatic worldview) that would say Keith was "seduced by a critical spirit". I also think you have some of your facts confused. You can read the statement you are referring to, Not For Prophets Only, which is here. It is one of the tracts Melody has removed from the Last Days Ministries site to avoid people making the sorts of interpretations of the matter you seem to be. Melody in No Compromise places the tract into a time period where Keith was being broken by reason of his seeing his own sinful nature in a greater light. The time saw Keith produce songs like "Grace, By Which I Am Saved". Keith never rejected, but accepted his prophetic motivation, but struggled with the label and with pride he began to exhibit over the matter. In one of his journal entries in No Compromise, he is shown even complaining to God that He had not called him to simply preach "easy" and "loving" things.  "Why have You called me to always confront?" Winkie Pratney in his forward to No Compromise recognized that Keith's prophetic side was a major, if not the major aspect of his life, and after very specifically framing Keith's life as prophetic, says that a second Reformation was cut short by Keith's death. When Melody later published A Cry in the Wilderness, she picked up the theme of Keith as one in a prophetic role. I am not at all against including this era in this bio article, but will insist we leave off our own interpretations of the matter and rely on Melody's and Winkie's. They lived through all of this in very close intimacy with Keith and are simply exceedingly more qualified than us to interpret the matter. Overall, this article could be a very full length article, if someone has the mind to make it so. CyberAnth 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The name of the song is 'Grace By Which I Stand'. Sorry to be picky.71.31.170.161 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are reading an entire world view I don't share into a few words. Seduce means to be enticed by, and "critical spirit" is what Keith had. He was seduced by his own pride and became unmercifully critical--simply put.


 * I'm really not surprised they removed that tract. They've been cleaning house and reforming Keith's image since he's been gone for some time now. I don't see any of the "Reformation spirit" tracts against the Roman Church there either. God forbid anyone should ever know Keith held such views. They just wouldn't understand.


 * If Keith had set up a plan to reform his "prophetic" purpose, history would have it to look like it was more his idea than God's. It baffles me why anyone would want to reform his image though in such a way as to bury the old and pretend it's not there. Let's also pretend what happened to 6 million Jews and 2-3 million slavs, gypsies, political prisoners and other unfortunates, hey? My great grandfather dug his own grave and the Germans helped him fall into it. I don't mind--not. Was Keith that bad? No. Is calling for a make up crew on Keith biography bad? You bet it is. Keith, I'm sure, would agree. Imagine how Jesus feels about how people revised who he was to make convenient their purposes--holy war for example. I guess someone shelved "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were I would have my servants fight for me." People would just get confused over that one. Oh, that's right, they didn't let the masses have the whole Bible, period. "They wouldn't understand.... \:D


 * As for not knowing "intimate details" of his life, a hate preacher called Keith before his death and told him that God was going to hold him accountable for compromising his words of "no compromise." As far as he was concerned, Keith had gone apostate and proved himself by slacking on truth. "Intimate details" is a wonderful expression that buys a whole lot of nebulousness. I don't need to know how many moles he has on his back to see that he wasn't the same prophet he used to be. Sometimes, people need to be evaluated in a different venue because the people that are close to them are a just a little too emotionally biased and partial. I'm not living off of his image either. I don't need to "fix" it.72.64.52.235 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * KEITH "It's not that I no longer believe that I'm called to do that, it's just that now I see that every believer is called to do that - to call all Christians everywhere to obey God and win the world for Christ! The main thing that God has shown me through all this is: I'm not called to be a prophet, I'm called to be a CHRISTIAN - a servant of the living God! That is the HIGHEST calling that anyone can realize."


 * Clearly here, Keith believes he isn't differentiated in any way from how any other Christian should be. Since not all Christians are called to be prophets or any other single office in Christ's body according to Paul in I Corintians, he is not magnifying an office of prophet as his. He is merely relinqishing himself to being a Christian who is motivated to be all that means in encouraging others to follow Christ. According to this article then, Keith is coming across as denying an office of prophet. As for what others saw in him, they are reading more into him than this tract allows. If anything, they were just helping him spiritualize the pride that was driving him to believe he was one, like he says they were.72.64.52.235 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am one of the originating editor of this article and made it what it is now, supplying most of the references and footnotes (but I'm not the originating creator of the article). It was inaccurate in many places.  I also acquired all the images (except Green's photo) and published them here.
 * Now, my response to the originating entry above is not to add the section so named (above) to the article. This article has been checked for accuracy by two people who knew Green and who were involved in the Last Days Ministeries (such people are still called "LDMers"), and any corrections mentioned were implemented into the article.
 * The article is not intended to give a life story with all of his life's intricacies, but just highlighted aspects. And I am not concerned with what the article "looks like" because statements with that phrase are always framed by opinions influenced by preferences and perceptions. It was intended to offer a positive outlook in his biography, not idolize him. There is already short mention of his drug use and involvement in other religions. Mdoc7 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * God forbid we should include his religious sins.72.64.36.93 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia forbid we should include his religious sins. By doing so, we are necessarily inserting POV.


 * I disagree. Keith Green underwent a radical transformation to his ministrial approach in 1981. It would be a disservice to Keith Green's memory to leave anyone with the impression that he did not realize his error, having come to terms with his lack of grace, and changed.


 * After reading through this whole thread, I am amazed that so many contributors think this article is by Christians for Christians, and even then by Christians within a certain range in the theological spectrum, justified perhaps through an affinity (or antagonism) with Keith's own theology. This is an encyclopedia. There are already bits in the Ministry section of the article that are POV blended with Christian shop talk.


 * Talking about Christians without words Christians commonly use from the English language is like a mathematician not being able to use words like "Calculus," "vectors," "derivatives" and soforth in Wikipedia, simply because they are not words familiar to the general public. To deny certain elements of vocabulary because someone is not familiar with "Christian shop talk" as you put it, is unreasonable. The ministry section contains a positive note to Keith Green's ministry, not an "antagonistic" one. Keith repented. Christians consider that a good thing, not an embarrassing thing.72.64.35.218 10:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have only left them alone because I don't have time for an edit war. Holford 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, 72.64.35.218, why don't you get a user name and spend some time learning etiquette.


 * Temper, temper. You don't make the rules, and critisizing the behavior you have mostly imagined of me isn't exactly etiquette either, is it?


 * My comment wasn't meant to be a broken up set of quotes for you to use.


 * Sorry you have to feel that way. If you are speaking to me, then I will make it easier on you by inserting my answers where you will see the immediate relevance.


 * Second, we are not here to service Keith's memory. This is an encyclopedic biography, not modern hagiography.


 * Biographies by due course do serve a person's memory, if they don't that's a new one on me, so forgive me for having stated the obvious. The point is to cover all aspects good or bad in their revelant histories to properly reveal the nature of the person. The article only covered the negative aspects of his secular life. His Christian life was way too perfect, and that is probably because of the idolotry going on her by Christian editors that Keith wouldn't have approved of.


 * If the change in Keith's approach in 1981 is worth noting, then it is inappropriate speculate upon his repentence, not to mention the peculiar repeated usage of the word "himself". In addition, it is speculative to refer to one thing demonstrated in his concerts with a clear transition seen in a studio album.


 * That's repentance is not speculative at all. Keith openly repented of his behavior in his public newsletter, The Last Days Newsletter. I read it myself the day it came out. I was a subscriber. I citation might be in order though. Keith's music tended to be very prophetic and judgmental before this public declaration. The music that followed was consistent with that change of focus. That's all that was being said. Nothing was being proven, just pointed out.


 * Your math analogy breaks down quickly. If it were an article about theology, then shop talk would be appropriate. Further, the shop talk isn't even universally used by all Christians.


 * Words such as "repentance, displeasure, wrath, and condemnation" are all universal words used by Christians to discuss the mechanics of God's Word AND they also apply when discussing the dynamics of a Christian's life. The point of analogies is not to be exacting on every detail either, as you presumed. Parables are usually only intended to make one point. As a Christian, you should be aware of that, so please exercise some courtesy and try not to "strain at gnat and swallow a camel."


 * It doesn't matter whether this positive or antagonistic, or whether, as Christians, we think it good or embarrassing. Holford 21:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point was that you mentioned something in the article was antagonistic, about the time you were refering to the ministry section, and I refuted that. It all makes sense when you slow down, read and do not judge by appearances. If a Christian thinks it antagonistic, let him think again. That is all that I said. Breathe, my friend, breathe...then make specific constructive recommendations for the article, not your annoyances over me.71.251.186.96 02:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly you feel no obligation to respect my wishes that you not break up my comments. I'm breathing just fine, even if very reasonably annoyed with you at the same time.


 * Being annoyed to yourself is one thing, lashing out with unreasonable rationalizations based on careless comprehension or willful distortions of my comments and adding dictates for my behavior are another, and it has no place here.


 * I did make constructive recommendations for the article, which I have been editing for two and a half years.


 * I was saying to focus on doing that rather than your annoyances with me, not that you weren't.


 * I am not denying that Keith repented - I was a subscriber to the Last Days Newsletter at the time as well. I am only concerned about the decision making process for determining which things are encyclopedic and how those things are presented in the Wikipedia context.


 * Then perhaps you can wikify the form in which the ideas of the second half of the Ministry section are delivered. Put the content in encyclopedic form. If you know Keith as well as I do, you should know he was not being slandered by it.


 * And clearly I missed that you were offering the Parable of the Mathematician, rather than offering a direct comparison between two types of Wikipedia articles. Holford 23:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I really can't safely say I entirely understand the intent of your last remark, but on the surface it doesn't appear friendly to me.72.64.53.154 02:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you shouldn't say anything. ;)  Mdoc7 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this has been kind of an interesting exchange since my last post in May 2007. I'm in general agreement with Holford in that Wikipedia is not a Christian's encyclopedia, or even that this article is a Christian's article. In fact, Wikipedia is a secular media. Inasmuch as you don't put a new patch on old wineskin, you don't Christianize an article in a secular encyclopedia.

I'd left the scene because I'd realized then and knew that changes/additions will be made and the consensus is already divided, even amongst Christians.

Plain and simple: Green was a sinner like everyone else and was no better than his own father, yet his demeanor as a Christian was made perfect because of Jesus Christ (his role as prophet aside). That's why my editing was not predicated on the approval of Green, but neither is it predicated on yours simply because you'd like it to be "approved" by Green. There was nothing perfect about Green's life in this article, but Jesus Christ made him perfect (not his life) and the LDMers understood and knew that. But you can't say that in this article. It's considered "POV".

"Biographies by due course do serve a person's memory...": my response: That's an autobiography, not a biography. Mdoc7 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) - I disagree with Mdoc. The facts about Keith's repentance are not POV. Keith would only want the truth about him to be known so God would be glorified. All LDM people know this, and so should those who don't. Leaving out the "dirt" makes Keith look perfect to those who DID NOT know him and it ends up idolizing Keith as some sort of legend. Him not wanting to have it this way is not a detriment to the truth or facts, but supports them both. Anyone who can't handle that, needs to consider why it is they want Keith's memory to be swept clean of any imperfections. 71.251.182.189 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) - Well, I disagree. There is already mention of his repentance that you spoke of, and that's not all. No "dirt" was left out from the original form. The article was reviewed by 2 senior LDMers and some corrections were made. The only thing swept clean were factual errors and inaccuracies. And here's another thing: this article does not glorify God (John 15:5 hints why), nor will it, even if this article were modified according to your opinion of how you think Keith wants it done. If you say Keith "wants the truth to be known so God would be glorified," why would you yet insist that God must be glorified in the manner YOU feel KEITH would have it? Or, put another way, why should Keith's preferential idiosyncrasies about himself determine how God gets the glory, or how Keith is perceived? So your silly idolizing argument falls flat (actually, it points in your direction). Mdoc7 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) -- There are two significant life changing repentances in Keith's life. The first is the one you mentioned, Mdoc, the one where he he became a born again Christian, changing his skepticism of theology. This led to his religious conversion. The second is the one in argument, the repentance of his ministrial approach which was harsh and full of condemnation. This led to the radical changes in the tone of his ministry and music, very significant changes worthy of being mentioned in his biography. Simply put, the latter is not revealed by the first, and therefore the latter is not redundant of the first.72.84.78.116 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) -- It is to the latter that I was referring, not the former, which is already in the article. There was never any discussion about redundancy, and I understand which repentance is being referred to. Repentance is and should be one of the hallmarks in the life of a true Christian--not just one or two, but many. But it is not a major topic in this article because the article is not about his repentance. It is only one aspect of his entire life. Now, that's twice I've had to clarify that it's already in the article. Mdoc7 (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-ranking
This article article needs to be in Category:High-importance Contemporary Christian music articles . CyberAnth 06:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur. WAVY 10 14:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Mdoc7 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Album Artwork
Hi,

I've upgraded the majority of the album artwork as the existing files were pretty poor.

Kind regards, Adw uk 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Album Release Dates (as of March 2008)
"The Live Experience," "The Live Experience Special Edition," and "Greatest Hits" have had their release dates pushed back several times. According to several sites (EMICMG/Chordant,CMC Distribution, Christian Book Distributors) and from direct information I received from Betty Daffin at Last Days Ministries, the release date is currently set for 4/29/2008. Cjsummers (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Updates to album dates
Since the "Live Experience," "Live Experience Special Edition," and "Greatest Hits" albums are out now, I updated those lines to reflect the actual release date instead of saying "scheduled release date." Also, based on the Last Days Ministries website (http://www.lastdaysministries.org/Group/Group.aspx?id=1000008701), I updated several albums with more specific release dates, if more specific dates were available. Cjsummers (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Days Ministries website update
Last Days Ministries recently updated their website, so the links from this Wikipedia article to the website were all broken. I think they're all fixed now, if I caught them all. Cjsummers (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Album Releases
I added the new EP's that were released this year, "The Early Word" and "Happy Birthday to You Jesus". I also separated secular and Christian posthumous releases to distinguish between them. I added a brief description of the "Happy Birthday" EP in the Legacy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithgreenfan (talk • contribs) 02:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Movie
Recently added a new section titled "Movie", noting Melody's announcement of a movie about Keith's life on the Last Days Ministries website. Updated this section today (5/18) with additional information from a Daily News interview, in which it is revealed that Michael Leahy is working with Melody on the project, and that the film is slated for release in 2011.Keithgreenfan (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks to all others who've made similar entries in my absence. Mdoc7 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Legacy
I became aware of a tribute show that is performing the music of Keith Green in Australia. As this is of interest to Keith Green fans, I added it to the Legacy section. It has been removed due to the concern that the band name 'No Compromise' infringes copyright. However, there are plenty of tribute bands around the world that use words associated with the original artist, but not the actual name, in their tribute band name. http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/we-are-just-a-tribute-band/ I believe this edit should be restored. Crumpola (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently they are using the name of the song and the singer's name in violation of a request to stop. I have seen no proof of that. If it is currently being litigated, we should not throw fuel on the fire.
 * With that said, I know of no band that has more tribute bands than The Beatles and it mentions none of them and Elvis Presley has many tribute acts and no mention of it at that article. I see no reason why this article should be any different. We can check at the appropriate project to see if excluding tributes is normal or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keith Green. 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 tag to http://www.thedailytimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20070804%2FFAITH%2F70804010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222132812/http://www.garyusher.com/disc.html to http://www.garyusher.com/disc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928000636/http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20020917X03242.asp to http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accidents/20020917X03242.asp
 * Added tag to http://ldmers.org/images/Various/GV-1995.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for missing citation
Forgive me if I'm breaking protocol by not formatting this properly -- this is my first time in years to contribute and I don't want to mess anything up, but my attention span is limited -- but I wanted to offer a possible citation for the reference in "Spiritual experience" to Keith having been "raised in Christian Science." He referenced this in an appearance on "100 Huntley Street" in 1982, which can be found here: Hope a more experienced Wikipedian finds that useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodnwheel (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The reference would be helpful if it had been provided by the copyright holder. Unfortunately, we can't use it as a result. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing from Keith Green's discography
Missing from Keith Green's discography are most of the songs he created as a boy and teen. By 11, according to the TV show What's My Secret?,* he had ALREADY composed over 40 songs! What are these? Where are these? How many were recorded? How many were released? Which were released by Decca?

Also, Melody Green was a songwriter, before and with her husband, and perhaps after? If there is no article for her, then, here, what were her songs before she met Keith? What about any other songs by her? Which did she do music on, and which the lyrics? A lot is missing here.

A lot could certainly be added. Fans? Misty MH (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Misty MH, I agree that a complete list of songs that were published prior to Keith's conversion would be great. Of course there are a few mentioned here. I should note that even though Keith wrote that many songs, I believe only a few were actually recorded. Keithgreenfan (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Source Reference: This video reference to Keith saying that, on that show: "11 year old Gospel great Keith Green" at 4:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ6Vi2PUx08&t=295s