Talk:Larry Norman/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Larry Norman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wow, are you kidding?

Norman had a pedigree that included musical and theatrical ancestors, including his maternal grandfather, Burl W. Stout,[67] a vaudeville actor, who performed scenes from Shakespeare and presented other dramatic readings,[41] with the Fontinelle Stock Company,[24][68] which was founded in 1892,[69] and operated by Robert Clair Fontinelle (born 2 September 1874; died 12 November 1966)[70] in Missouri, Iowa, and Arkansas for over thirty years,[71] and which had included Pearl White,[72] before she left to begin her film career.[31]

Seriously, is this a joke on how to write poorly and confuse readers? Also a single paragraph, especially short ones, do not need their own section header. The table of contents itself is a painful read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverdent (talk • contribs) 13:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is all unfortunately cited, but I don't think the sources are WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Which sources in the quoted section are unreliable? This is for my own edification as they all seem kosher to me.smjwalsh (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources that are Larry Norman when speaking about himself don't meet WP:RS. They are essentially WP:SPS. The material is quite often self-serving. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you meant the LN claims. What was there was LN's claims and then external verification. Essentially what remains is some of LN's claims without external verification. I'm not sure how that is an improvement.smjwalsh (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a stab at some general clean-up here. Combined two sections into one, and eliminated a lot of the distracting superfluous information. Reduced the article by about 2kb. --64.121.41.204 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I sympathise with your desire to reduce what you see as superfluous but in so doing actually removed sources external to Norman. An ongoing topic of discussion is the veracity of Norman's claims, hence merely relying on his own liner/linear notes rather than verifiable external sources IMHO weakens the article. If the facts are still included, then it is better to have them non-LN sources backing them up. Also the edit seems to be in the character of less specificity which has in other articles given rise to inserts of who and when requests for details.smjwalsh (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources I removed went along with the material I edited out. I am pretty certain that I did not remove any references for the material that remains.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't about where the source is from, but whether the material belongs in the article at all. I think that the anon's edits were good in removing fan cruft. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two issues. The first one is discussed earlier in this section: LN's claims and external verification, and the 2nd, which is what should be in the article. Despite the edits there still remains a watered down less specific version of LN's claims with little external verification. Assuming the material there now remains, it needs better sources and more specificity. If it is deemed all extraneous, then more editing is needed.smjwalsh (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The only references removed were the ones associated with the superfluous content that was similarly removed. References are not needed for someone's name or draft card if the name is never mentioned, and details about a theater or the family who owned that theater is not required if it is never mentioned. As originally formulated, the references were not ones coupled in support of Norman's; Rather, they were references first from Norman, and than an unconnected reference about the thing or person he mentioned. The external references did not generally offer support of a connection to Norman.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

If there's material that doesn't have verification, it should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that material has to be removed if it doesn't have a source now, there is a difference between not currently sourced and unable to source. My concern is better writing to be clear what the narrative is headed. The example above meanders and tangents several times. It's pretty bad. Is there an important point in all of it? I missed it because I was hearing voices in my head talking about related but different things. Wait, what did they say? I think the entire article needs to be rewritten so that a grade school student could read through it and understand each sentence as they go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverdent (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I must confess that my writing style does tend to major in a superfluity of clauses, and so the expertise of a professional editor would be beneficial. I tend to write normally at the doctoral level and have to keep reminding myself wikipedia is not an academic journal. One reason sentences tend to be the way that are is that as additional facts are discovered they are added on the fly, creating a piecemeal approach. This is often exacerbated when there are many editors involved. I am not aware of anywhere in WP that indicates preferred reading level. I would have assumed it should be far higher than grade school but far less than graduate school. I'm not used to "dumbing down" my writing, so there is scope for those with that gift. My point was not that material is unsourced but rather that it was sourced from outside of the subject of the article, and that now its sourcing is inferior to what was there.smjwalsh (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much an issue of "dumbing down" an article as much as it is of a need for clarity in writing.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting an article should be written at grade school level suggests a drastic "dumbing down" to me. I agree with you about clarity being critical. This can be achieved without dumbing it down.smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, trim this down

The refs make up half of the whole length of the article. Please use titled links, not bare links.

The article also needs to use less quotes. For example the "Hollywood street ministry" section is almost completely composed of quotes. Like, "Norman recalled ... Norman indicated ... Norman described ..." etc. Please, please someone cut this down, summarize without so many quotes; this issue is present throughout the whole article and contributes to a lot of the length issues. I would do it but I don't know anything about him.

Sections like "People!" and its subsections are redundant in this article. Please see WP:SS. There is already a People! article. This article does not need 12 paragraphs on People!. I suggest simply mentioning a. how he got involved with the group, b. one or two paragraphs about his role/importance in the group, and c. his departure. The "Records (1967–1968)" subsection of the "People!" section mentions Norman only in passing, and focuses on the records, something that belongs in the People! article but not Norman's article.

Similarly, we don't need separate sections for his albums, i.e. "Only Visiting This Planet" and "So Long Ago the Garden". One paragraph about each will suffice, if just combined with the section above those. A good length would be the length of "n Another Land" without the block quote part. This issue is also present throughout the article, such as with the "Something New Under the Son" section. There is an article about the album, so Norman's article only needs to briefly mention it and not go into detail about the album.

Under the "Solid Rock implosion" section, I see this paragraph:

At this time, Norman and his manager, Philip F. Mangano, severed their business association,[385] with Norman selling his interest in Street Level Artists Agency to Mangano,[386] who subsequently resigned in October 1980 to start a new career in working to help the homeless,[387] and becoming the Executive Director of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness for seven years from March 2002,[388]

Firstly, it ends on a comma, and secondly, the only part that's necessary or useful is the part before [386]. No one cares about Mangano; this isn't his article. The article is about Norman, regardless of how many homeless people Mangano helped.

Other irrelevant trivia is found in the "Personal relationships" section. For example, "On 7 November 1981 Pamela married musician Joey Newman,.[594] Pamela subsequently appeared as an actress in several television programs,.[595] She has one son, Michael, and lives in Carmel, California with her husband, Joey, and runs a modeling agency.[596][597]" doesn't need to be in this article because Norman had divorced by this point. Similarly, "During their honeymoon, Norman and Pamela stayed in a barn at the Love Inn (now called Covenant Love Community),[582] a ministry started in 1967 by Scott Ross and his wife Nedra,[583] formerly of the Ronettes,[584] in Freeville, New York.[585] Other stops on their honeymoon included L'Abri,[586] a Christian community started by Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, who had a profound influence on Norman.[291]" is trivial information about his honeymoon and just adds to this article's ridiculous length. It took an amazingly long time to load this page.

Way too many blockquotes. After the "Analysis and evaluation of Norman's music" section, I count 9 blockquotes. They need to either be trimmed down or removed; I severely doubt we need three quotes about how wonderful his music was.

To summarize, the size of this page could be greatly reduced from 208kb by:

Using titled links, not bare links
Using less quotes
Summarizing sections which cover material already in other articles
Removing trivial information

Thank you, /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Use fewer quotes, not less quotes. Agree with the rest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor grammar :) /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has eight interwiki links to non-English Wikipedia articles. This article is about 3.77 times as long as all of them put together. JIP | Talk 08:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Does that include the references as well? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I counted by the raw bytecount, so I guess it does include them as well. JIP | Talk 21:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the article should stay as it is is. It's a fantastic example of vastly-overdetailed fancruft, and serves perfectly as a warning to others. According to Special:LongPages it's only 24th now; it used to be third, I believe, and is almost entirely drivel about a generally insignificant musician of no relevance outside the United States, and even in that context he's a speck. Nonetheless it doesn't hurt anybody, and in practice it'll die off once the main contributor - I'm not sure if it's Mr Walsh or Walter Gorlitz, based on the edit history - leaves, or gives up, or dies. Once that happens, the knives will come out and this article will be slashed. Your legacy will be slashed to ribbons. You built a castle on a sandbank. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's certainly User:Smjwalsh. This is the article he has edited the most, with 2161 edits. These also constitute over 65% of this article's edits in total. See here. I don't know why Smjwalsh is so much obsessed with Larry Norman. JIP | Talk 18:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Now he seems to have taken another subject: Fanny Crosby, whose article is now over 192 kilobytes long and has 507 references. JIP | Talk 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to undo

I had to undo this edit with only minor changes (U.S. -> US). It did make several fixes, but as per its comment (General formatting, date formats per WP:MOSNUM; ref fixes) the changes are incorrect. WP:STRONGNAT indicates "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day;" and so the date format for this American subject should remain in US format. Unfortunately, this undid several other changes as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Don Williams

Seems DDS makes claim on Fallen Angel FAQ (http://www.fallenangeldoc.com/faq.html): "Most notably, in the book Call to the Streets by Rev. Don Williams (1968), Larry Norman is said to have been impressed by a "gospel hard rock band" named Agape who "convinced Larry" to play Christian music". There are several problems with quote as I see it: 1. no mention of Agape being first as anon editor indicated; 2. being impressed is not the same as being influenced; 3. Williams' book seems to have been published in 1972 by Augsburg Fortress Publishers, not 1968; 4. LN was clearly playing Christian music prior to 1972. So, we need earlier edition for Williams' book, page number for quote, and date of Agape playing if a claim of influence is to be sustained. smjwalsh (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music indicates Williams' book was 1972 also, and claims "Agape was one of the world's first Christian bands to play hard ..." Certainly not a claim to be first. See page 121, and 27 re Agape. The Billboard guide to contemporary Christian music by Barry Alfonso (Billboard Books, 2002), describes Agape as "True Jesus Music pioneers" (110)smjwalsh (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are enough problems with the sourcing of the Williams material that removing that portion of the sentence unless/until better information is obtained is warranted.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We have a direct quote how are there problems? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We still do not have a direct quote from Williams to whom the information is attributed. DDS precis of Williams differs from Powell's, so it is best to have original quotation here. However, my sense of the historiography is that Williams makes his claim, something like what is now in the article, and it is picked yp by DDS in his 1999 bibliography, and then quoted directly or indirectly by Powell, Alfonso, Cusic, John Thompson, etc. I cannot find anyone else citing Williams directly. IOt also seems evident that Agape was formed in the late 3rd or early 4th quarter of 1968. Caban graduated from high school in 1968 (probably May), formed a band, was converted several months afterwards, returned to Azusa, renamed band as Agape. Also it seems Agape was hard rock (however defined), certainly more so than LN, or more properly pyschadelic ala Grand Funk Railroad. These are of course subjective assessments. Ultimately, Williams claims (if substantiated) are only claims, not facts per se. They should be included and balanced with the alternate claims.smjwalsh (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Your assessments and edits are correct as per my understanding of both the subject and the band itself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I was able to track down a copy of Williams' book at a local university. The quote referenced is found in the book's third chapter, "The Salt Company", on page 34:

Thanks for the effort.smjwalsh (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

“Larry Norman, rock musician, now converted to Christ, heard ‘The Agape,’ a hard rock Christian group, play songs about Jesus. This convinced Larry that he could use his rock music to communicate the gospel, and later he was to release a Christian album through Capital Records called ‘Upon This Rock’ and become a leader in the music of the ‘Jesus Movement.’”

The actual quote gives a much different feel than the original summary that had been provided. No mention is made of Agape being first, nor does it state that this was how Norman first came up with the notion to play Jesus rock music. For the purpose of clarity it would be best to use the actual quote if anything is to be used on the topic. Some additional thoughts: The timeline places it somewhere between the summer of 1968 (the inception of The Salt Company) and 1969 (when Norman returned to Capitol Records to work on Upon This Rock). It also fits with his departure from People! in the summer of 1968, giving credence to the idea that Norman was moving in this direction and that affirmations such as witnessed at The Salt Company helped to convince him that his use of his music to further the gospel had merit.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have shifted that material from the religious background section to the section dealing with his Hollywood street years (1968-1969), where it now is sandwiched between the period when he believed he should stop performing ANY music, and the decision (he says influenced by a dream) to start performing Christian music again. Given the context of the other developments, it may be fairer to say that Agape's use of Christian rock was one of the factors that convinced him to resume his Christian music ministry.smjwalsh (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This material makes much more sense in the section that you have moved it to.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The actual quote gives exactly the same feel as the original summary with the exception of stating that Agape were the first Christian hard rock band. That is a frequently stated issue. Will have to see who else thinks that. As for the notion, it is clearly stated: "This convinced Larry that he could use his rock music to communicate the gospel". The time-line is before he started writing material for Upon This Rock. It gives no credence at all to the idea that Norman was moving towards Christian music when he left People! or that it was his motivation for leaving People!. For all we know it was during a depressed time after having been kicked-out of People! and looking for a new way to make a living which would back the documentary's conclusion. We cannot state as fact any opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The original summary said: "In his book Call to the Streets, though, Rev. Don Williams who ran the Salt Company coffeehouse states that it was while Larry watched Agape, the first gospel hard rock band, perform that he first got the notion to play Jesus rock music." In addition to not stating that Agape was the first anything, Williams also does not state that watching Agape perform was where Larry first got the notion to play Jesus rock music. In a single sentence, the writer of the summary twice attributes the use of "first" to Williams, and neither instance is accurate. Taken together they create a fairly significant misrepresentation of Williams' statement. It is an excellent example of why being able to reference original source material is preferred over relying on a secondhand summary. By including the actual quote there is no need to quibble over interpretation, nor does it leave room for misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking, etc.

The entire comment was Reduce oberlinking as WP:Overlink only link first occurance, do not link common words or major geographical features etc. and so this edit will have to be undone. The edit was not inappropriate, but undoing it was. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There are also cases of WP:UNDUE like the link to George Martin, etc. If Martin wasn't there, or more specifically part of the recording sessions, he shouldn't be listed let alone linked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

June 1980 Solid Rock meeting & reliable sources

I have just reverted Walter's deletion. Let's discuss the added/deleted material and try to reach a consensus we can live with.

Here's the relevant additions I made originally: According to Di Sabatino, the concerns of Stonehill, Taylor and Howard and other Solid Rock musicians led to an intervention on June 17, 1980 with Norman organized by Philip Mangano, the Solid Rock business manager,[16][393][394] whereas Norman's brother, Charles claims that Norman was "tired of Phil Mangano's business ethics ... so he fired Phil [and a] few days later, Phil staged a coup d'etat and convinced a couple of the acts (Randy, DA, Tom Howard) that they would be better off if he could manage them".[395] According to Charles Norman, "Larry knew Phil's takeover was coming, but saw it as a good thing since he no longer wanted to work with Phil or those artists anyway".[396] According to Rimmer, Fallen Angel claims that "it was at this memorable meeting that Larry, rather than bowing to the concerns of his fellow artists and the Solid Rock family, chose to strike out. With accusations against his co-workers, he began the process of winding up the Solid Rock operation and the dreams of the artistic community came crashing down."[352] Charles Norman claims that "At the 'infamous' meeting, Larry very nicely released them from their contractual obligations to Solid Rock. He didn't have to. He did it to get rid of them, more or less".[397]

In the editorial summary, Walter makes the point that Charles Norman is not a reliable source. My response is that in this paragraph, we have DDS' version of the meeting (based on claims of Stonehill, Mangano?, and Terry Taylor), that the meeting was "an intervention". This is a subjective characterization of course. It is their claim. It is reliable. It is verifiable. It may not be true, but WP's standard is verifiability NOT truth. As WP seeks to be balanced, I have added the contrasting claim from Charles Norman (based on claims of Larry Norman and an audio-recording not yet released to my knowledge), that it was in fact a "coup d'etat". This is another subjective characterisation of course. It is a claim and written in article as such, from a verifiable source. Charles was not there, but neither was DDS, or Mike Rimmer. So we will be left with a "he said, he said account", until audio recording is released, and authenticated. Its best we can do at this time. So we have both claim and counter-claim, so it is balanced and meets WP standards. We did the same on several other contentious matters eg airplane accident, departure from People!, etc.smjwalsh (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This can be done by inserting one line of code:- {{TOC limit|limit=3}} just above Early life.
This reduces the TOC to one screen high, without removing the sub-sub sections and sub-sub-sub sections themselves, but gives a far more usable and less daunting TOC. Knowing a little about this article, I am suggesting this here, rather than being WP:BOLD and doing it - although having tested it, I think it is a major improvement.
If this is going too far, for some, can we at least remove the sub-sub-sub sections by using the code {{TOC limit|limit=4}}?
Try it!
Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done as per your suggestion. This was a new WP procedure for me. Thanks for teaching. IMHO sub-sections etc are needed to break up text and make actual body of article more accessible, so this removes a visual impediment near outset and perhaps makes it a little less daunting. While debate on this page can be vigorous, I believe all active editors are reasonable despite differing perspectives. smjwalsh (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Much improved, but it was only one screen page for me before. Thanks Arjayay and Smjwalsh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Active Banana's baby and the bathwater

As suggested by editor activebanana, I am willing to discuss my most recent edits. He indicates in his edit summary that my edits were against the consensus of this page and they constituted excessive quoting. Firstly, I am not aware of any such consensus. Secondly, in the eyes of less generous editors, his injudicious and non-selective edit would be perceived as vandalism. It is classical throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Consequently, I have reverted his edit, and am willing to discuss specific edits I made. If this article was (say) 50% of its current size, I doubt any of the edits would have been questioned. All edits were sourced from reliable sources, were NPOV, corrected erroneous information or clarified details. What took me 3-4 hours of research and selective editing was removed in one fell swoop by a drop by editor. I'm not a dog with a bone on this article as previous discussions reveal, so let's take the time and identify specific edits that you believe violate WP policy.smjwalsh (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As for the large blocks of quoting, he has a point. Not sure they're necessary. As for consensus on that, I don't recall there being a consensus at least not in this group. As for babies and bathwater, I agree that an overly-zealous removal is not a good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Large blocks can certainly be pruned. However, as you would probably agree, with this particular article, and given the subject of the article, it is best to have accurate quotes in context. The recent Don Williams quote illustrates that. In any case, in this particular case, the comment does not apply. WP guidelines indicate on RS that f using primary source material (eg Norman interview) that it is necessary to use actual words rather than violate OR or create new syntheses of material. When editing this article I always ask myself WWWA (What Would Walter Allow)?smjwalsh (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Its more like trying to find the needle of usefull information in the haystack. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And I count as consensus the fact that everyone who comments on this talk page other than .smjwalsh says its too long. All you gotta do is glance at the archives. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone. See whokilledduncan's comments. Reading of archives rather than glancing will reward reader with a better understanding not only of article but rationale of editors. Only ones concerned about this issue are drop-by editors, with exception of Waltergorlitz. As I understand it, your concern is article length and excessive trivia. It has been marked as such for some time. Everyone who has seen the article sees those boxes. If the problem is excessive length or trivia, then do the hard yards, read the article and remove specific material. Its very easy to delete recent edits that may be better than existing material. It takes no time and minimal brainpower to hit a rollback or twinkle button, but a good faith edit to trim the fat and even improve style and content will certainly be respected by me.smjwalsh (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's too long or not, there's no reason at all to remove additions just because it's a long article. Active_Banana seems to be injecting a personal bias against making long articles longer just because they're long. It makes more sense to make them shorter by actually removing the dross and leaving only the gold. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I knew you would see the point. smjwalsh (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles Norman is not a reliable source for Larry Norman issues

Time to discuss why he is. He is essentially a promoter of Larry and as such nothing that he says can be trusted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Charles Norman is more than just a promoter of Larry Norman, although he obviously defends his brother. He is not a neutral source. Neither is DDS, or even the participants in the meeting. They all had (and in some cases still have) vested interests in the matter. Some have financial interests, others their own careeers and choices to defend perhaps. Also, with the passage of time, memories fade or even opinions solidify into what is sometimes believed by the participant to be facts. Therefore, contemporaneous accounts are always preferred by historians, even though they these are not neutral either. However, neutrality of sources is not required by WP. Partisan opinions are permitted by WP guidelines. In this particular case, we are looking at opinions, hence the use of "Charles Norman claims..." or "According to DDS, ..." or "According to Mike Rimmer". These clearly indicate that what follows are claims or opinions, not necessarily facts. WP indicates: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion". WP requires that editors write in a NPOV manner, which I strive to do, as evidenced by including quotes from those who question the claims of LN eg Geoff Levin, Daniel Amos, Randy Stonehill, etc., and even Fallen Angel. No doubt you have heard the saying "even broken clocks are right twice a day", so even if Charles' motives are suspect, they could still be right, as could DDS'. What CN offers is the opinion of LN as to the nature of the meeting, and a counter-balance to the claims of Fallen Angel, which is also not an objective source. As we all know, even first-hand participants in the June 17 meeting do not possess objective truth about the meeting. There is not even consonancy of opinion among all participasnts. It must be remembered that we all view reality through the prisms of our prejudices and perspectives. Hence, the importance of the different opinions to allow readers of the article to see that the nature of the meeting and motives behind the actions of the participants are contested, and for the readers to draw their own conclusion. At some point the audio tape and transcript hopefully will be released. Should that happen, I suspect it will still not reseolve the matter as no one can fully know actual motives behind actual words spoken. Nonetheless it will hopefully move us in a better direction. Until then, I am comfortable hearing the opinions of those on the various sides of the issue, and let the readers make up their own minds about what is presented.smjwalsh (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Charles is not a good source on the dissolution of Solid Rock because he wasn't there and is only reciting what he's been told by Larry. We have, in the documentary, a group of individuals who agree on the circumstances. The documentary's creator did not force them to say anything specific and so he isn't even the source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not being there does not disqualify one from being a reliable source. In fact, reporting what has been told makes one a secondary source, which WP prefers even to first-hand primary sources. DDS, Rimmer, C Norman are all secondary sources. It seems that recollections of folk on FA are quoted accurately, assuming accurate editing keeps remarks in context. We've all seen quotes taken out of context elsewhere. I'm not aware that anyone (except Pamela Norman) is saying they were quoted inaccurately or their words were twisted. However, all recollections are by nature subjective, and possibly self-serving and not necessarily in accord with objective reality. This applies to FA, but also recollections of LN and his supporters. They are fallible, but still can be used. Readers evaluate them for what they are worth. We all do that all the day. It is axiomatic that one must use a sound hermeneutic of suspicion when evaluating all such recollections or second-hand opinions, especially in relation to the subject of this WP article, as he has an unusually polarised public.smjwalsh (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Di Sabatino is not the issue, he is a compiler of primary sources. The reason that Charles is not a reliable source is that no one else backs his claim that this is what happened. The fact that the pages on his blog are essentially nonsense doesn't help him either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm doing a poor job communicating my point here. I'm not dissing DDS here at all. I am saying that DDS, Rimmer, and C Norman are equivalent in that none were there, but are secondary sources, which are acceptable (in fact, preferred) on WP. Without accepting or otherwise the veracity of the information, I accept validity of DDS as a source here as he does indeed present primary sources, who may or may not be presenting objective truth. Whetrher it is or not is not relevant as the WP standard is verifiability of source not truth. According to WP guidelines on reliable sources (see discussion above), opinions are acceptable as long as they are clearly indicated as statements of claim or opinion. I have consistently done so. The veracity of C Norman's claims are also not relevant, nor is his lack of support on his pages. What is pertinent is that he made them, and that they are verifiable as his opinions. I am not presenting his version or characterisation of the events of June 1980 as fact, merely that these are his opinions based on his understanding of Larry's version. It is a little frustrating to me that you chose not to engage the issue of what constitutes a reliable source as far as WP is concerned. A person may be a liar or 100% wrong and still be a reliable source as far as WP is concerned if it presents a contrasting opinion. Blogs are also admissible in certain situations (which includes the present one).smjwalsh (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm doing a poor job communicating. I'm saying that it's first sources such as Stonehill, Mangano, Taylor, etc. were primary sources. Larry is reflected in the Failed Angel web site and Charles. Neither of these sources was present and they simply reflect one person's view of what happened. The fact that Charles has blogged about what he remembers Larry saying happened doesn't make it a reliable source. It's simply fuel for his lawsuit against Di Sabatino. It should not be included here until it can be verified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a current lawsuit against DDS from CN? I was aware of the previous ones regarding the release of Fallen Angel, but was not aware that there was a new lawsuit. Depending on the details, it would be good to include that information in the article.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that there's a current suit although I'm not that familiar with what's happening. As for including it in this article, that would not be appropriate as the subject of this article has nothing to do with the lawsuit. If there is one, then it could be included in another article more closely related to the suit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with you that - dependent upon the details - the information would be best placed in the DDS article. Unless, of course, it specifically involves/includes issues related to LN, in which case it should be in both articles. It will be interesting to see what this new lawsuit revolves around.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no current lawsuit from Charles against David. Whokilledduncan (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes my mistake. The only suit was from Di Sabatino to "clear the use of the music by fair use". That was the extent of the suit. No other suits have been brought to court. Once again, I was mistaken. Must have been something I assumed after reading in a fan group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your frequent willingness to admit when you are shown to be wrong, and to fight tenaciously for what you believe to be correct. Thanks also for your adherence to WP policies as you understand them. Would that more editors did this.smjwalsh (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Stonehill, Mangano, Taylor, etc are primary sources. So was Larry, and other Solid Rock artists. The problem is what does one do with conflicting primary sources? One easy answer is to say it is 3-1, a convincing score in association football, and most readers of the article would probably give the weight to the majority view. Also, it is possible that the statements of the Solid Rock 3 have been edited to present a consonance in narrative that may not be exactly so if the entire unedited interviews were available. There is supposedly an audio tape of the meeting in existence of which a snip is heard on Charles' site. Charles' accounts accurately reflect Larry's. I hear what you are sayuing about the absence of either Flemming or Charles Norman, but absence does not preclude one being a verifiable source. Winston Churchill was not at Queen Victoria's coronation but his account in the History of the English Speaking People would be verifiable source for WP. When Flemming finishes his Ph. D. dissertation on Norman at Fuller Theological Seminary, it will certainly be a reputable source. What both Flemming and Charles Norman assert is that their opinion is based on the audio tape of the meeting, which is better than what Larry told them. I have written to both Allen Flemming and Charles Norman asking when/if audio tape will be released. Would you agree that this would constitute a primary source, and that the reporting of it would be a secondary source, and thus acceptable under WP? I don't know anything about lawsuits between CN and DDS. If they occur then they can be included as per previous action relating to Daniel Robinson or Fallen Angel. It will be the Dragnet account: just the facts.smjwalsh (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Where is Larry's argument? We have Charlie's, which claims to be Larry's. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the WP article we have the following from Larry (about 2 paragraphs down): Norman acknowledged in a 1984 interview: "I've never been really good in the business side of it. I haven't had a problem with creativity but I've never had the business side of it together."[401] In a 1998 letter to Randy Stonehill, Norman indicated: "I DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT: You know I never cared about money, so it's something I never worried about. Which was probably not helpful to running a record company and keeping track of everything to the artists' satisfaction. ... I couldn't run the label without competent assistants. I trusted Philip [Mangano] to keep track of royalties, gave him an open checkbook, and never looked over his shoulder. I thought he was my other half. And Philip just wasn't that man. He made a lot of money ... and I'm sorry about your royalties, but I ran the musical side and Philip ran the business side". Charles Norman's version essentially rehearses Larry's position that Mangano was responsible for the business side of Solid Rock, and was responsible for distribution of royalties, etc. However, whether the meeting was an "intervention" or an attempted "coup d'etat", we already have that the meeting was organized by Mangano. What the Solid Rock artists quoted in FA cannot know was what was in LN's mind (or heart). In the existing paragraph, Rimmer (based on hisinterview with DDS) and possibly on seeing FA, attributes motives to LN's actions. Charles attributes other motives based on his conversations with LN. Essentially all sources confirm there was a meeting, that and it was a key moment in the demise of SR. Charles' opinions (based on his brother's account) and probably on the audio tape, merely add more explicitly LN's concerns about Mangano's business ethics, that LN was happy to allow SR artists to leave, and that he released them from their contracts. Nothing earth-shaking here I thought. smjwalsh (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we should reduce the section to not use non-neutral words such as "intervention" or "coup d'etat" and simply reduce it to say that the business ceased operation after a meeting and that there were hurt feelings on all sides. This would help in reducing the length as well. This isn't the Mangano article nor is it the Solid Rock article. No it doesn't need to be created =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We could use neutral words but the use of "intervention" by one side and "Coup d'etat" by the other better communicates both that it was more than a routine meeting, and that there are differing perspectives on its nature, content, and motives. You're probably correct that this should really be in the Solid Rock article, as the main article will/should be pared especially initially in those sections where sub-articles have been created. Mangano does not have a WP article but is notable enough due to his work in Bush administration as Homeless czar. There is a lot about him online and some of it is quite controversial. smjwalsh (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article length yet again

In an article that has long been tagged as too long and too full of intricate detail, the onus is on the person who wishes to add content to show the value of that content. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that's a policy. I thought it was the onus of editors to make it smaller. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is stopping anyone from doing so. Article has been reduced 10-12% since its peak size with very little resistance from me. I'm quite happy for those with the desire to prune the article as they see fit. However, as you acknowledge, there are recent edits that have merit. So, if Activebanana wants a better article, he/she should take the time and go through the article (as other editors have done from time to time) and apply the scalpel rather than a machete.smjwalsh (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the arguement that "it was even bigger before so I should be able to add back content." doesnt carry weight. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that no content should be added at all ever? Should I just send proposed edits to you first in this new Banana Republic? If you were familiar with the subject matter, like Walter, you would see the value of the edits. I can edit and add content as WP says Be Bold and edits are all within WP policies. You now have 2 editors telling you that there was no consensus violation, and you acknowledge no policies were broken.smjwalsh (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've only been in WP 4-5 years and so do not know all of WP guidelines or policies. Can you point me to this particular policy you are referencing? My understanding is that there is no mandatory upper limits of articles, and that perceived excessive length of an article should not preclude any edits that conform in all over respects to WP guidelines. I believe that the burden is actually on you in this case.smjwalsh (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not policy, but guidelines for which there should be specific valid reasons to ignore. Wikipedia:Article size Wikipedia:IINFO#IINFO. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't fly bananaphone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the improvement to the encyclopedia to ignore the guidelines in this instance? Specifically make your case. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignore all rules. That's what the page you linked to says. The case here is not special at all. There's no reason not to add additional information to an article just because it's already long. What needs to happen is the information should be reviewed and material not directly related to the subject, or not specifically vital to the subject should be removed. However, until that review happens, there's no reason not to add information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Walter. While I have no plans to add information to this article, perceived excessive length ought not be an impediment for adding material, nor for creating guidelines for this specific article where no WP rules or policies are being violated. I realise this article is not of the same quality as Active Banana's magnum opus, I believe it makes a substantial contribution to human knowledge.smjwalsh (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple English version

As a "naughty" suggestion, I note Larry Norman does not have an article in the "Simple English" language Wikipedia. Perhaps we could develop a Simple English version and use that as the overview here?
Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I admire your desire to propose a way forward. However, a Simple English version, while needed, is not a shorter version of the original. It requires skill in using the 850 words of basic English to ensure children, and those with limited English can comprehend the article.smjwalsh (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not split the article some? Calling it too long remains subjective

An illness section, including the music associated with raising funds and the death could be its own article. Another possible article would be a Legacy/impact including notable collaborations. Another one could be the musical career over several decades with just a summary needed in his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.212 (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about it. The article is too fricken long for anyone but the fanatic who keeps insertiing content to actually read it. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is too long. It is currently the 26th longest article on Wikipedia. The problem is that the content is mostly of interest to a small group of fans (read: Solid Rock Army, etc.) and those 100 or so people are really the only ones who are capable of removing what should be removed and what shouldn't. As for Mr. Walsh's edits, I don't think there's anything wrong with adding information to an encyclopedia, however, it must be vetted more closely to pare back the aforementioned cruft. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No it's still subjective. But whether or not it is a bit pointless. Back to the point then. Any non-prejudicial ideas how splitting the article might help? For some readers anything could be too long or too short. If a document is laid out well it has an index so you can find the information you're looking for. Wikipedia's treatment of the early Christian musicians of the 1970's and 1980's is (oh-ho! subjective) very poor and Larry is one of the most influential figures of the genre. Just saying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.212 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's neither subjective not pointless, but feel free to hold to your subjective opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dividing it up will require even more text to explain what happened before, and after, each spun-off article. What this would also require, is a succinct summary, as an overview, referring to all the specialist spun-off articles.
Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course the matter of an article's length is subjective. Like Goldilock's porridge, it is obviously too long for some, of sufficient length for others, and possibly not long enough for others. Context of publication would determine appropriateness of length. This article would be too short for a dissertation, thesis, or even a published biography. As it appears that the promised LN biography is probanly at least 2-3 years away, and as this information appears no where else, I believe it meets a need (even if for only 134 current SRA members), and the scores of people who flock to see DDS's documentary Fallen Angel. I note that the article was viewed "10728 times in 201105" (http://stats.grok.se/en/201105/Larry_Norman) or an average of just over 300 times a day. However, while WP does not have a maximum length for articles, there are guidelines for length which I respect. According to those guidelines, the upper limit is about 100kB. Currently LN article is: Prose size (text only): 130 kB (22319 words) "readable prose size". What propels this article to 28th largest is the proliferation of references to substantiate material to ensure fact is separated from "spin" or polemic, or to show where specific claims are made. Surely no one would argue that there should be less documentation. Anyway, As I have indicated for at least a year, the article should be split into sub-articles. I have previously done this to create the articles on the relationship between LN & Randy Stonehill, as well as the Musicals of LN. I propose the following sub-articles:

Early Life and career of Larry Norman - would cover 1947 to 1966
Larry Norman's Capitol years (1966 to 1969) - covers involvement with People! and Upon This Rock
Larry Norman's Hollywood Years (1968 to 1971) - street ministry, musicals, One Way Records
Larry Norman's MGM Years (1971-1974)
Larry Norman's health and death (1978-2008)
Contributions of Larry Norman

I am open to any other suggestions, or even additional sub-articles. It's time to address the length and then "cruft" issues.smjwalsh (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"What propels this article to 28th largest is the proliferation of references " - you are not seriously suggesting that we compare the text only length of this article to the text+reference length of other articles to determine its status as being too long???? Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No such comparison is made nor intended. The point I made clumsily it seems is that if the LN article had far less documentation (say 10% of total length), it would be 50% of current size, and not feature as high on the list of long articles as it does, and thus would have avoided attention of drop by editors. If it was exactly as is (130kB) plus an additional 10% of references (13KB), it would total 143kB, and would be just outside the top 1000 longest articles, ranking below such notables as Alexandru Macedonski. I'm not suggesting reducing the documentation, merely pointing out that the the list of long articles is ranked by raw size not by size of readable prose, which is the area benchmarked by length guidelines.smjwalsh (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the detail included is helpful but may need to be cleaned up a bit. For instance there are numerous timeline queues that are blurred when later quotes and events outside the timeline are layered in. That's not bad writing but rather confusing to those not familiar with the subject. I agree a split off of Larry Norman's plane accident, later years, and death would make a compelling read. Here's an influential and prolific artist talking about how an accident affected his work and later being healed from that perceived damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The detail is not helpful to anyone but the most serious fans. I'm actually thinking of removing the recent "move" of content because it wasn't done correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is your subjective opinion and you are right to have one. I can't say I'm a fan at all but I do find the detail very helpful just presented poorly in some cases. A simple turn of phrase and not burying the lead can be helpful here. Cluetrain (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Split

I don't think Solid Rock and Daniel Amos should be moved into Larry Norman's health, later years, and death. Any objection to restoring them here? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they can fit into both articles. IMHO some of the section organizing has created problems but I don't see in this case that those items can only be in one or the other. Cluetrain (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not whether the can fit into both articles, but where the better location for them is. They should not be in both but in one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. That article needs to be reworked to show how his health impacted his work. Currently it only glosses over that information. I see no rush to delete it from either article. If you feel it needs to be re-aded here then it can be in both articles. This main article needs a lot of work so this is simply a starting point. Cluetrain (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. I know I disagree with the move. This article does need to be reworked, but you're starting too early in his career to select the date of when his health problems happened. The plane fuselage incident is disputed (see The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music and other sources). The fact that he did major tours after that means he wasn't in failing health until his heart attack. Also, moving the delay of the Horrendous Disc into the new article is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with his health issues. It has everything to do with issues around the collapse of Solid Rock, which should also be in the main article. It was essentially after SR fell apart that he fell off the face of the media.

However, I think the entire article should be edited heavily, simplified, and all the fan cruft moved to a fan site where it belongs. The article about Larry should be no more five screen pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It was good to start the process of creating the oft-discussed long-proposed LN sub-articles. Having done so previously, I know there are many intricate procedures involved in creating the new article, dealing with references, and then summarising material in the main article. Here are my responses to the above discussion:

I'm not sure the new article is best-named. It should either be "Larry Norman's health issues and death", which would focus exclusively on his health starting with the plane accident (I know it is disputed but even Mangano acknowledges it happened, although he disputes its affect) through the heart attack, healing, and conclude with his death. It would thus exclude the Damiel Amos and Solid Rock material now included.smjwalsh (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It could be re-titled "Larry Norman's later years and death", which would include all the current material less the late 1970s material eg plane accident, White House, etc. I think the collapse of Solid Rock in June 1980 would be the key turning point in his career. This would be my preferred option.smjwalsh (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In any case, creating new sub-articles would also necessitate leaving at least a summary of the removed sections in the main LN article, as this eventually would be the place a casual reader would look to find out about Larry Norman, and then those interested in more detail or specific topics could look to suggested sub-articles. For this reason, I have restored the death and awards sections (without deleting same from new article). Consequently, there is a need to create summary of LN's later years in the main article.smjwalsh (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Early life and career of Larry Norman article

I have created a new sub-article: Early life and career of Larry Norman, which covers the period from birth to just before the release of Upon This Rock, which will allow pruning of this main article in the relevant sections.smjwalsh (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Benchmark for article length

Currently article's readable prose size is "Prose size (text only): 91 kB (15626 words)". What quantifiable objective standard as measured by readable prose size would result in the article no longer being deemed "too large". As there is no maximum size legislated for WP articles, and the guidelines only refer to readable prose size, and the upper limit of the guidelines is 100 kB, would it be now agreed that the article is now within the acceptable range and thus no longer "too large"? I reognise that there are those who will say that anything on LN is too much, and there are subjective aspects of this matter, but it would be helpful to have a consensus on this subject. Personal preference cannot be the standard. How do we read the WP guidelines? The intricacy of detail issue still needs to be addressed, and I see efforts made in this direction today, even though there may things removed that should be restored based on previous discussions.smjwalsh (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I see article is now #244 on longest WP articles (*down from #26 last week). I see that efforts to reduce agreed upon trivia will reduce size in this main article, although there will be an increase caused by re-insertion of a summary of the Solid Rock and later years material.smjwalsh (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Only because a large chunk was completely removed and a new article was created with that information. Not even a summary of the material was left behind. I don't know that there's a benchmark other than the 32 K. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that is the reason for reduction, but Adolf Hitler article (for example) has something like 20+ sub-articles. Some entertainers eg Elvis Presley have dozens of sub-articles, including one for every album. I think if we continue to create necessary sub-articles, shift material (or duplicate it in the sub-articles) and then focus on getting this article to something like you have described previously through reduction of intricate detail. Then, allow editos to work at individual sub-articles where length will be less of a consideration, thus allowing some intricate detail.smjwalsh (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Two issues with that. The first is that when material is pulled to make a sub-article, something should be left behind as a précis of what was removed. However the edit that removed it did so en masse and left nothing behind. There's no reason to go see that article.

The second is that relatively speaking, they're important historical figures. All respect given, Mr. Norman isn't.

In short, all that's needed here is for the extraneous material to be heavily edited and we'll have a shorter article. The edits made my Collect are a perfect example. Long block quotes, and material about people who aren't really important.

And quite honestly, the demise of Solid Rock is really the end of the first era, not the start of the second. The split has been made on the wrong side of the historical time-line. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first point 100%. The first split was well-intentioned but did more harm than good. I almost joined you in reverting the split altogether just for that reason alone. Consequently, there is material that needs to be restored. I agree that LN is not as important historically as either MJ or Elvis. I know you will aknowledge that LN is notable and important in the early beginnings of Christian Rock. My point was not that LN deserves more or even as much as those folk, merely that the length of those articles are deemed acceptable. There is no guideline that says less important topics are only entitled to less words or size. To do so would make appropriate length subjective. I'm looking for an objective benchmark that can be agreed. smjwalsh (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to comment on your Solid Rock comment. I agree. If there is to be three articles (which I know you disagree with in concept) divided into Early (1947-1969) "Seminal" (1969-1980) and Later periods (1980 onwards), then best to conclude with dissolution of Solid Rock. If the chrobolog is bifurcated then 1947-1980, 1980-2008. I don't see sub-articles as "load shedding" but a better place for material that may be excursive or more intricate. Perhaps that was collect trai9n's agenda (or to stir up trouble) but I accepted his edits at face value. If you look at some of Collect's edits in the lede, I imagine you might conclude that there was excessive cutting there eg penchant for revisionist etc is removed. I would be in favour of restoring lede and them allowing some trimming in areas of significance. What do you think?

I've been looking at Michael Jackson article as it's well-written and has many related articles. This one still needs a lot of work but will be easier to get around when sub articles are created. Cluetrain (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Michael Jackson article. It has been a featured article so obviously meets WP standards, so a good benchmark article. Its current stats are: File size: 709 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 166 kB, References (including all HTML code): 51 kB, Wiki text: 187 kB, Prose size (text only): 81 kB (13547 words) "readable prose size". To achieve this, It has 11 sub-articles identified as well as all his albums etc. It is not flagged as too long. LN article is 10% longer as measured by readable prose. So, would this be an acceptable point to remove "too long" tag on LN article?smjwalsh (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will let the BLP comment on the length. Again my main issue is that Mr. Norman is not a notable as Mr. Jackson. If notability were the only issue, I'd say reducing the size and number of articles to 10% of the Jackson article should be enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could compare the length of the LN entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music to that of other artists. Norman's entry there is eight and a half pages. Resurrection Band is five. Stonehill, four and half. Amy Grant: six and a half. Love Song (band): four. Randy Matthews: three and half. Phil Keaggy: eight, and that because he had a longer career after the seventies. Perhaps balance this article with those. Any others you'd like me to list? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A fair comment. The question could be is LN too long or those other subject's articles on WP too short. :) Would you agree that Powell's article (ECCM) would be appropriate length for WP for LN. It is 17 columns or probably 8,000 words. I believe WP article should strive to be better than Powell's. He covers all the relevant events but with no scholarly aparatus at all. Powell also does not attempt to identify all controversial areas in LN's life and career, and balance claims and counter-claims. smjwalsh (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Powell also misses, for obvious reasons, much of the last decade of Norman's life, not that it was outstanding: a few "final" concerts and the battle over the inclusion of his music in a similarly minor documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

True. So would a target of (say) 9,000 words of readable prose for now be desirable.smjwalsh (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it depends how we get there. If it's just moving information into new sub-articles and all the extra information from this article is just relocated, I don't think it would be. If it's really pruning, then it would be excellent. I would even think longer would be fine in that case. I measure it by the overall length of the material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Larry Norman seminal period article

I believe the next sub-article should cover the period when LN returned to Capitol Record in 1969 through to the collapse of Solid Rock in June 1980. Any thoughts about suitable article title?smjwalsh (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Something like Larry Norman's career during the 1970s? And make sure the summary explains what transitions took place. vCluetrain (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary. Prune this article severely and then include all of the important information in this one article. Stop splitting this article off into sub-articles just to make this article appear smaller. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You can hold off insinuating my motives, my only interest is helping this content get presented better. It's actually quite incomplete in some areas and some points might have extra details. Simple copyediting can resolve much of this. Everyone knows you want to eliminate all the subjectively unimportant information. There is obvious differing opinions on what is important or not and I only see Smjwalsh cooperating with keeping everything in synch while content is shifted around. I come at this with fresh eyes and much of the "unimportant" detail is quite helpful just presented awkwardly. In addition it feels like much of the bulk is in the notes and references which will in turn get moved to subarticles and can be cleaned up as people feel the need. You read an encyclopedia to learn information, I don't see too much information as a problem here. I do think the writing, presentation and formatting need to improve but none of that dictates sever pruning. Of course, this is all my opinion and I don't claim to be an expert on Norman. Cluetrain (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing motive at all. I simply stated the facts. The article is smaller. Material was removed. No summary was added to replace the removed material. So in essence, the article is worse off and Wikipedia is no better off. I'm not really editing because I'm afraid that my edits would be considered disruptive. I would simply remove vast blocks of material. As a non-Norman expert, you have chosen a strange subject to focus all of your energies on. Since you created your account, you have only edited LN article. This is what we call a Single-purpose account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You insinuated that sub articles were only being created to make this one appear smaller, that is not the case, at least for me. Smjwalsh seems to be much more familiar and corrected some aspects to make it all work better. I pretty much agree with all their improvements including the renaming. Now you insinuate I might have "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas". Just maybe this is the first article I was interested enough in editing and felt I could help on. I suppose you would assume I was focussing "all my energies" (I'm not) on whatever articles I first decided to edit. Most people would say 'thank you'. Cluetrain (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did no insinuate that the move was made only to shorted this article, I stated it outright.

I'm not insinuating that you might have promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. I simply stated that you have only edited Larry Norman articles since you arrived here two days ago. I don't know what your motives are but I assume good faith. However you have not edited any other articles and that's a red flag.

Am I missing anything? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as you keep expressing yourself so well I imagine your status quo will remain steadfast. I choose to work with other people and although I have been a long reader of Wikipedia I did not feel the urge to edit much until now. I'm starting to regret it in fact. The slashing of content that's going on while sub articles are being organized seems particularly "disruptive". Was the fact that Norman could not read or write music somewhat relative to his story> You betcha. How about that his parents became Christians rather than merely went to a church. That would seem important as well. I'm not an expert but I have plenty of common sense. I have only been working on this article as it's the first article I've worked on. Don't people have to start somewhere? I fail to see your logic and I hope to see your point of view, until then I'll work my best to improve the article and keep checking in. Cluetrain (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, Norman's inability to read or write music is not relevant at all. Most modern musicians can't. The editing is not at all disruptive. It's actually needed, and more of it. People do have to start somewhere, but the usual pattern in that editors don't focus on a single subject. They tend to focus on a broad topic. I fail to see your logic and I hope you start editing more broadly to your sake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Cluetrain was a sockpuppet. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was frustrated by his initial split as I had proposed a schema for sub-articles and was waiting for comments or consensus before proceeding. I felt he had in his zeal jumped the gun, but was prepared to try and work with it as best I could as I do not own the article. So where do we go from here? Restore the 1980 to death material in main article and then allow pruning, to try to keep all relevant material in one article? Of course, this will increase article size back to almost original size. In my head, I had always hoped for sub-articles with detailed material (perhaps not as much as there was), with main article then pared to summary of sub-article. In any case, current situation is unsatisfactory as you identify in lower sction with "the rest of the story" now omited in main article.smjwalsh (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored most of material shifted by Cluetrain as per above discussion, without touching areas recently edited by Collector. I propose leaving sub-articles alone for now until dust settles again on this main article.smjwalsh (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not reasonable material in lede etc. Wikipedia is not a place for every factoid imaginable

Ledes should be a short and concise overview of the topic - not an article unto themselves. WP:LEDE. In addition, blockquotes should be used exceedingly sparingly and be of direct relevant to the person - not to expounding their every waking thought <g>. Third - frequently a shorter article gets more widely read and absolutely more widely understood. Wikipedia is not a repository for every factoid on any topic, and certainly not for detailed discussion about every song a person wrote or performed, or was or was not released, etc. See Mark Twain for how a large oeuvre gets handled in a good BLP. The prupose here is to make an encyclopedia article which will be of actual use to others. Let's try getting the article down to what is sufficient for even Mark Twain - 93K. And he was actually a teeny bit more important than Norman. Or a very prolific person Joseph Widney at 60K. He used to be 194K. There is no valid reason for Wikipedia to be "Toolongopedia". Really. Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, let me indicate that I will not be opposing every effort being made to prune/trim article, and will only endeavour to restore/discuss material that I genuinely believe to be essential to a correct understanding of a controversial subject. You mentioned Joseph Widney and may recall that I was most co-operative in your efforts to edit the article to a more readable and accessible size. As I pointed out back in 2008 when Widney was the focus of our shared intersts, I am not precious in the treatment of my contributions. It seems that my interests are more in article creation and research, and that I struggle with conciseness and awareness of what interests the general reader. (1) I agree with reduction of lede, although there are probably a few clauses or sentences that could be restored. There was a major discussion on this page about Powell's comments about Norman's penchant for revisionist history, with the consensus to keep it, so probably that should be restored as it is a coomon belief about LN, and prepares reader for the fact that there are claims by LN that some doubt. Any additions to the lede would be minimal. (2) I hear what you are saying about block quotes. However, there are times when it is essential to get actual words rather than a precis, especially with this subject as much discussion in online communities focuses on what people believe is said often removed from a context. (3) I agree with your point here. I must confess I have been staggered by negative reaction to article size, as my own intersts are omnivorous. I'd rather know more than settle for less, but it seems that my position is very much a minority one. I always feel that casual readers can read what interests them, but also allow more specialised or detailed knowledge be accessible for those who want more than the headlines. (4)I have no illusions that LN is more important than many whose WP articles are shorter, but he is very important in a minority area of interest (Christian music). I'm still not convinced importance of subject to whole population is best barometer of article length in an online encyclopedia. I can understand argument better for old school printed encyclopediae. Anyway, again I reiterate my continued willingness to co-operate with your aims as we all share the goal of creating a better article.smjwalsh (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No sweat - I recall your cooperation for sure. I still feel that a lede of more than 3 paragraphs is likely to have material of secondary importance (rather the same position I have on pills - after the first three pills one takes at a time, the probability of the fourth most important pill helping is reduced by the likelihood that the interaction with the first three will reduce their effectiveness <g>). Secondly, I think that in most cases a long blockquote does no more for the article than a short sentence concerning the topic - the words of the person involved may offer no more insight to the reader. Thirdly, this article has a lot of stuff about many songs - I suggest we limit these to (say) four or five pivotal songs. The rest can be listed, but there is little that the reader will learn from lengthy discourse about every lyric. Really. "Less is more" is a truism. Note, by the way, my position on the British line of sucession article, where I found a 95% reduction to be excessive. The ideal is to reach a reasonable level where people will read the full article, and not to the point where they only see two pages and are done. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This article was on a cracked.com article for overly detailed Wikipedia pages. Apparently, this page takes up more space on Wikipedia's servers than the entry for Jesus. Obviously, that doesn't mean this page HAS to be (severely) trimmed, but it's probably a good indicator that it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.96.173 (talk • contribs) 22:52 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the decision that FailedAngle.com is a RS or not?

I don't recall any discussion on the topic. Care to show either the positive or negative? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There was discussion in April 2010. It can be reviewed in Archive 1. Three editors (none of them me) discuss it. There Walter is one who accepts Failedangle.com as an RS, as do the other two. see [1].smjwalsh (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the website significant to the topic to be added? At the moment the content there is sourced to itself (a self published source, I hope it is obvious to everyone why it is inappropriate to source "a website rebutting the video exists for X reason" purely to the website) and to a weebly.com address (again, another self published unreliable source). Another factor is that I believe it is being given undue weight via having its own heading. This is related to major BLP issues on Di Sabatino article where similar content was being used to disparage the guy; which is how I located the material.

Do any reliable sources identify this website as significant? --Errant ^(chat!) 06:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the weebly.com address is questionable at best (with the possible exception of the recording of LN), and should be removed. It was also created as part a public exchange between Charles Norman and David Di Sabatino, and makes little sense outside of that context. The Failed Angle site, however, contains significant material from the archives of the subject of this article. The site is published, to my understanding, by the individual currently writing an authorized biography of Larry Norman. He has been given access to LN's archives, and the family has authorized the release of primary sources from the archives ahead of the biography's release to counter some of the claims in the movie. The materials include letters, audio recordings, contracts, etc., that have not been previously available. The Failed Angle website is significant in that it responds directly to the claims made by the movie with primary sources that are unavailable anywhere else. This is especially relevant given that the subject is deceased, and only has a voice through his archives.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Failed Angle site is published by the individual, and is self-published. Coverage needs to be independant to establish significance. The Failed Angle website is significant in that it responds directly to the claims made by the movie with primary sources that are unavailable anywhere else; basically you need a reliably published source that says this. Otherwise, unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet inclusion criteria. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say that it is "published by the individual", are you referring to the subject of the article?--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry no. I meant to say it is published by an individual - the point to get across is that it is a self-published source without editorial control. The key is to get third party coverage - I've looked but can't find any. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I have found some references on other sites that refer people to the Failed Angle site specifically as a counter to information that they have written about the film. A couple of examples are here and here. Much of this is somewhat new to me, so I am not certain if this is the type of third party coverage you are referring to.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that self-published materials can be used in limited circumstances. It seems stricter in relation to BLP (eg David Di Sabatino article) but certainly less so if the subject is deceased (eg Larry Norman). WP insists articles are NPOV. To achieve this at times sources that are undoubtedly POV need to be balanced by other sources that are also POV. The effect of including both POVs is that the relevant material is NPOV. Editors need to write from NPOV, whereas the sources themselves need not be so. Accordingly, both Di Sabatino's documentary and the failedangle.com achieve that primary WP objective collectively.smjwalsh (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To achieve this at times sources that are undoubtedly POV need to be balanced by other sources that are also POV; actually no, this is specifically a situation to avoid. I've been looking at the material. We can cover that a documentary was made and that it was controversial (with attempts for it to be blocked). None of that is covered in POV sources. If we started reciting claims in the documentary then, yeh, that is an issue.

As the "Angle" website relates to Di Sabatino as well the BLP concerns remain even on this article. My personal view is that Failed Angle may warrant a sentence if we can reliably source it. SPS are usable for factual detail about the subject - in this case the importance is to establish this as a significant response; which is not something the website can be considered reliable on :) The sources presented above are going in the right direction, but I think they are a bit "blog lik". We may need more input from RS/N on this. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Claims made in the doco are in the article but appropriately balanced. The stated purpoe of Angle is to refute the claims of the doco. No doubt there are efforts to discredit DDS's methods, but nothing that would violate BLP IMHO. Long-time consensus position achieves what you suggest, without any other RS indicating its significance yet. smjwalsh (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The April 2010 discussion was over whether the website was a fan site or not. The conclusion was that it wasn't. Reliability was never discussed.

Just read the archive where you clearly stated about Failed Angle: "I have no problems as a source." It's fine, of course, if you have since changed your mind, but one would think that this discussion would have been to raise any issues regarding reliability.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But the concern was raised that the website has its own section. Is that balanced? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point, and I think that Smjwalsh's most recent edit has restore the previous version that included it only as a part another section.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Di Sabatino's documentary is a collection of interviews of many individuals. The web site is a collection of Larry's own machination. That makes it, as I've said (or at least alluded to) before, an unreliable source while the documentary is a reliable source.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And Clubfoot Johnson has yet to address the accusation of being a single purpose account. That single purpose: to make Di Sabatino look bad and discredit this documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than your mention of it here, I'm not aware of such an accusation, nor any need for me to respond to such personal attacks. I have asked you twice in another context to adhere to WP expectations of civility, and will do so again now for a third time. I will also take this opportunity to point out that the very article you linked to above contains the following caution for veteran editors: "Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing SPAs on their edits." Our time would be better served by focusing on the topic, and I suggest we return to that now..--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's a question. Your edits are suspicious and should, unless explained, be ignored. It's obvious that you're not a newcomer either. I am acting civily and would like to know what your relationship to subject is. Because there is also conflict of interest policy, and that is why, until your motives are revealed, that we should be suspicious of your edits and motives. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal attack when you continually choose to single me out. And if that was all you wanted to know, it's easier (and much nicer, BTW) to simply ask rather than accuse. I have no current or previous connection to Di Sabatino or to the Norman family, and other than owning some albums and attending a few concerts, I have no connection to Larry Norman. My guess is that most people who are interested in this topic are interested because of the music. There is no conflict of interest at any level. There is nothing suspicious about my edits, and I have engaged in good faith discussion at every point where there was a question. I have violated no Wikipedia policies that I am aware of. Near as I can tell you are an ardent supporter of Di Sabatino (you have stated as much on his discussion page recently) and appear to have difficulty with opinions that differ from your own. A quick scan of your talk page reveals that this phenomena is not isolated to Norman or Di Sabatino, as you seem to regularly have difficulty playing nice with others. I have no idea why you have become enamored with me to a point bordering on obsession but, as flattering as that is, I will ask now for a fourth time that you try to keep yourself focused on the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, all I have said about Di Sabatino is that I have corresponded with him privately. I have also spoken and corresponded with a great many other people people privately. That doesn't make me a supporter of Di Sabatino in the slightest. Because I am conveying his wishes with the group also doesn't make me a supporter, simply a messenger. You'll have to do better than lie about me and my intentions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The larger point was your inability to relate well with people you disagree with on multiple topics. I have no idea what your intentions are other than what you display for us. And while you are very comfortable attacking others, it is interesting how difficult is for you when others question you. In any case, let's see if we can keep you on point moving forward.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The larger point is that you are a single purpose editor who shows no other interest than slandering Di Sabitino. That is the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And to address your slanderous point about slander, I'll be waiting patiently at your talk page while you provide all of the examples that lead you to confidently make such a bizarre accusation. It's one thing to indulge your fascination with me, quite another to state outright lies about me out of your own frustration. I expect that the topic will never reach your talk page as I have never engaged in any such behavior, nor do I have a desire to do so. In the meantime, I strongly request that you stop making false statements about me. You are starting to move from amusing to creepy.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not an issue at all, but if it were it would appear to be your issue and yours alone. The facts are that you have a history of attacking others as a means of attempting to frustrate and distract, and I am apparently just your most recent target. While your constant fawning does make me blush, I will still need to ask that you return to topic (losing track, but I believe this would be request five). If you would like to continue exploring your fascination about me, it would be more appropriate to do so on your talk page so these nice people don't have to be embarrassed by your PDA.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic: the website is not a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have just restored this section to long-time consensus position as it is apparent that consensus was emerging that certainly the most recent website by Charles Norman was seen as qualitatively different than Flemming's failedangle.com site and should be removed.smjwalsh (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed; Failed Angle is not a RS in discerning it as relevant - the lack of third party coverage is highly concerning (all other issues aside). Consensus can always be re-discussed - although I see only light discussion of this issue in the past. At this point, unfortunately no one appears to have presented a policy compliant argument to include this content. Our sourcing policies are clear - I think this material needs to be removed. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What is most concerning is seeing people agreeing with my point about the weebly.com for which I give the same argument but ignoring it for Failed Angle :S the exact same problem exists there. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I was ignoring it. I came up with a couple of examples of references that may or may not be adequate for Failed Angle, but did not find anything that could support the Weebly site. I do not see the two as identical, but I am also still learning about this issue. Apologies if you felt that your arguments were being ignored - that was certainly not my intention.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for some more input on RS specialists --Errant ^(chat!) 19:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I am sorry that you are disappointed. I'm not sure why you are so emotionally invested in this article or the particular section we are discussing. No one has challenged your efforts on the Di Sabatino article in relation to www.failedangle.com yet, although to the extent it discusses Fallen Angel it is relevant and on topic. There are no personal attacks on Di Sabatino or his motives in this article. Have you read each and every page of failedangle? I can assure you that both Walter and I have, as has another editor wkd, who discussed the site, both here and in other places. Because you are not expected to be familiar with either the subject nor the dynamics of LN's post-morterm controversies (including the reaction to Fallen Angel), let me assure you that both Fallen Angel and failedangel.com are relevant. The fact that acknowledged opponents and proponents of LN and DDS agree on this ought to be considered pertinent. A strict constructionist or narrow interpretation of RS or SPS as you appear to be using does not improve the article. Read all of failedangle.copm and watch Fallen Angel as we all have, and then see what conclusions you would draw. This is not to say your opinions are not valid, merely less-informed than those with specialist knowledge of the subject matter and the maelstrom that surrounds LN and DDS.smjwalsh (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no emotional involvement or interest - apart from the article meeting wiki rules. let me assure you that both Fallen Angel and failedangel.com are relevant.; unfortunately our views are irrelevant. If this view is not established in a reliable independant source then it is highly problematic. That is the crux of the problem :) merely less-informed than those with specialist knowledge of the subject matter and the maelstrom that surrounds LN and DDS; yes, I gather it is controversial topic. However this is no excuse for ignoring the underlying tenets of Wikipedia and allowing a self-published source to confirm its own significance. :) The documentary I would usually question FWIW but it is indisputably mentioned in reliable sources - this means they have judged it relevant. Evidence of the rebuttal having the same notice would be very much appreciated. The "we are experts" argument is not a policy based one, I am afraid. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I haven't read every article on the site. Only a select few.

The relevance of the site to the subject is not at issue. Whether it's a WP:RS is. Using policy from the working group, is there anything that can be stated to support it as a RS? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, as a completely ignorant as I am on this topic (I've not heard of the man), I'm going to mention a couple things.

Several folks here really need to tone down the rhetoric. This is a place to document the subject, NOT debate "he was a great guy, he was a bad guy". Disassociate your emotions from the man, and try to put things in a "matter of fact" voice.
Considering the length of the article, and the "tag" at the top of it. Perhaps if you forked off another article which covered the "musical career", you could trim down some of the bulk in this article.
I'm no WP:RS expert, but my view is that if you want to use the "fallen angel" and "failed angel" stuff; keep it brief as a point / counter-point type of thing. Neither looks to be the quality site that you'd want to build the bulk of your article on. Either keep both or lose both. Pardon the pun, but Heaven knows you have MORE than enough sources here to document the facts. — Ched : ? 17:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with point #3: Keep both or lose both.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. He was only notable because of his career ~~as a musician~~ in the field of music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No. He was also notable, among other things, for his early work as a producer, promoter, and record label owner with musicians who themselves then went on to have notable careers.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I am in favour of the status quo. Keep both. The doco is attested by RS but Failed angle is necessary counter part to ensure article is more balanced.smjwalsh (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My strong preference is to keep both; however, if a decision to remove information about Failed Angle is made, then details about the film should also be removed.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that throwing the documentary out is appropriate because it is a collection of interviews by many individuals. The web site is a collection of letters and documents made by the subject and as such are a biased primary source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The Failed Angle website contains far more material than letters and documents made by the subject.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Failed Angle does provide access to letters and documents that were retained by author, including those sent to him. It is these sources (as well as others referenced in the article) that will be the basis of Falied Angle's creator's forthcoming doctoral dissertation and ultimately biography. Again, I reiterate. WP rules allow SPS on occasions, a strict constructionist view of SPS in this case does more harm to the article than an evaluation of the actual source itself. Behind every Rule is a Reason. The reason for SPS is to ensure quality of WP articles by eliminating sources of dubious quality. Irrespective of the stated aim of failed angle (to correct perceived errors in the doco), the site is by and large responsible and presents primary documents in a way that readers can assess for themselves. While there is selectivity in Fleming's choice of documents (as there is in DDS's doco), there is no dispute as to provenance or authenticity of those documents. While those documents would be primary sources (and ought to be handled with extreme care), the site itself is a secondary source by an acknowledged Norman expert. BLP ought to operate in relation to any personal attacks on DDS, but to the extent it critiques the work of DDS it ought to be acceptable. It is doubtless a partisan project (as is Fallen Angel), but pertinent to the subject.smjwalsh (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but the selection of material by Mr. Norman was selective, and I assume that the selection for the website was similarly selective. I'm sure that the same can be said about the raw footage for the documentary though. I understand that Pamela is not pleased with the way her portions were edited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The material from both sources - the film and the website - is no doubt highly selective. Di Sabatino himself has stated, without apology, that he made the film he wanted and from his POV. He decided who to interview and who to exclude; he decided what material made it into the final version and what was cut. The value of the Failed Angle site is that the material that has been selected for display responds directly to the accusations made by the film. Smjwalsh makes a very good argument for inclusion of the primary sources made available at Failed Angle. Allowing reference to the film while eliminating the response from Failed Angle does a disservice to the article.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

He stated that? Could you provide a reference?

Every documentary filmmaker has decide who to interview and who not to. It's my understanding that Larry Norman sent letters to friends to request that they not participate in the interviewing process which is why some key figures, including Norman himself, were not in the film. If you have proof to the contrary, it would be good to see. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"that Larry Norman sent letters to friends to request that they not participate in the interviewing process" - Are you able to provide any proof of this? (David saying so isn't proof). Has a single "friend of Larry" stated such? It is my understanding that Larry's friendship with Denny continued long after Denny was first interviewed. Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I can't provide any letters and I didn't get the information from Di Sabatino. It was in the Larry Norman discussion group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your questions here are the very reason that information about Failed Angle needs to be included. Details addressing these questions can be found there. Readers can hear from both sides and decide for themselves.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't have a reference for "Di Sabatino himself has stated, without apology, that he made the film he wanted and from his POV."?

Well, David did say "they're coming from a perspective that I didn't share" when talking about why he didn't include interviews from "fans". You can hear this, in context here: http://sharpens.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-di-sabatino-fallen-angel-outlaw.html - Click on the link "mp3 available here" and listen for about a minute from 25:59. Those words are possibly softened a little by the context, but he did ultimately say that he deliberately didn't interview people who had opposing perspectives to his own. Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The page can always be included in the External Links section. No material needs to be included at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In your eagerness to type, it appears that you neglected to actually read my post ;).--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No I read it. The site is wide and rambling and you didn't point to a single reference but rather a large source which isn't an acceptable reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up on the first part: Are you suggesting (or even stating) that he bent the information to suit my own premise or are you suggesting something else? I'm not quite sure how he could force or pay individuals such as Stonehill, Taylor, or Norman's former fiance, etc. to say anything since it would harm their reputations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what your own premise is, nor why it would matter to the filmmaker.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Existence of the documentary and surrounding events is covered in reliable sources. Hence; it appears significant enough to mention. Failed Angle is sourced to itself and notation of its existence appears in zero reliable sources (that I can find anyway). Hence; it does not appear significant. I could buy a compromise to mention its existence "In April 2010 authorized Norman biographer Allen Flemming created the website "Failed Angle: The Truth Behind Fallen Angel" to dispute some of the claims made in the movie". At the very least 'Believing Fallen Angel contained "many untruthful, misleading, and deceiving statements about Larry Norman is a contentious notation about a living person (i.e. the film maker) and as such cannot be sourced to a self-published source (period, really). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this represents a reasonable compromise, and would support changing the wording to what is proposed above by Errant.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the "contentious notation about a living person (i.e. the film maker)" an have boldly removed that claim from the article. Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I would argue against the recent edit for the following reasons: Flemming's statements about Failed Angel are indisputably his and attributed to him accurately by his own website, so they are definitely an RS for the phrase: "'Believing Fallen Angel' contained "many untruthful, misleading, and deceiving statements about Larry Norman", which is allowed by WP for self-published sources for statements or bio details that are not unduly self-serving. Further, the claims by Flemming relate to the documentary not per se to the filmaker, so BLP would not apply. They are more akin to a critique of a work of art than an attack on the auteur. There are several layers between Flemming's statement and DDS. Assuming ad argumento that DDS is an objective documentarian, the veracity or otherwise of the included statements relate to those interviewed NOT to the interviewer. In a court of law, a good faith belief in the veracity of a statement is one acceptable defence against a charge of slander or libel. If the statements made in the doco are false or create a distorted perspective on the situation, then the blame would not be attributable to the documentarian (unless he cut the film in such a way as to do violence to the intent of those interviewed). In any case, Flemming's rationale is relevant, appropriately sourced, and can be evaluated by those who read its content.smjwalsh (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Linear notes

Is "linear notes" a thing, or should those all be "liner notes"? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the history, but all of the Solid Rock releases made reference to "linear notes". It could have been a typo the first time but more likely was an intentional misspelling. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, as used here, it just gives the impression that someone who did a lot of work on the article doesn't know how to spell "liner notes." If we can't say anything in the article about the alternate spelling, and the "linear notes" are what would otherwise be called "liner notes", I would suggest just changing all the uses of "linear" to "liner." Would that change be met with objection? Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I am not sure that is the best solution. If it were used in the body of the article there could be an accompanying explanation about the spelling. But - unless I missed it - the use of "linear" here is exclusively in the references. The problem with changing it is that "Linear Notes" is typically the name of the specific item being referenced. Proper referencing requires using the name as it appears in the original item being, no different than would be done with the title of a book or journal article.--CJ (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article length discussed at cracked.com

Honestly guys, I am concerned that this article is a little too sparse. We need to know more about Larry Norman, his music, his family, life, and favorite type of breakfast cereal.Hexrei2 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of it is in there already, but bit the breakfast cereal, which isn't encyclopedic, but I suspect that you knew that. I'll assume it was irony (or sarcasm) and you actually still believe that the article should be reduced in length. If that's the case, I couldn't agree with you more. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I know what you're saying - I started reading almost an hour ago, and I'm already finished. This does not reflect the informativeness I have come to expect from Wikipedia. I feel like I might actually have to go out and buy a biography of Mr. Norman.71.236.242.147 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When you do, please let us know, as "71.236.242.147 Visits The Mall" sounds like an absolutely epic blockbuster of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.61.150 (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is in desperate need of expansion. The man wrote three comedies for goodness sake, and this is merely glossed over with a single sentence! -192.234.13.58 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The article discussing this is at The 6 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries and this article is at the top of the list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the literary experts at cracked.com. ;) --CJ (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie. Their point is quite valid, and it is drawing negative attention to the bloated article to the general public. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize, Jerry, the attention isn't a bad thing.--CJ (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you're not familiar with that phrase. "Sorry Charlie" is a line from an advertisement for tuna. It is used to indicate that the subject didn't meet the standards. I wasn't calling you Charlie simply indicating that your point was invalid and theirs was valid, so too don't meet the stands. If the use of the term somehow offended you, I apologize for that. Please don't call me Jerry, since it's a term of used by British and American soldiers in relation to Germans and, as you can see, my family name is German and I find it rather offensive. At least it wasn't as offensive as some other terms you could have used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm first generation German and have never found the term offensive - never even heard it used in an offensive way; but duly noted that you do for some reason. [Heck, some of my best friends are named Jerry.] I am, however, a vegetarian and find your tuna references unseemly. I think it's more offensive (silly, really) to state that another's opinion is invalid, so bear that in mind, Herr Görlitz. You are welcome to disagree with it but you can't invalidate it. I've missed you. Carry on. :)--CJ (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)