Talk:Larry Norman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Larry Norman was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 13, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Oregon (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Lake Oswego Transit Center & Oregon Ballot Measure 80 (2012).
WikiProject Christian music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Christianity / Charismatic (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

{Press |author = Josh Fjelstad |title = The 100 Longest Entries On Wikipedia |org = BuzzFeed |url = |date = 2011-06-22 |accessdate = 2014-12-13}}

Dispute Resolution[edit]

I am an uninvolved third party with no connection to the musician or the director and no strong views about anything related to this topic. I did work on this page once before, but that was to address the problem that it had become one of the largest pages on Wikipedia - far larger than, say, our articles on John Lennon or Elvis Presley.

I am willing to attempt to mediate in this dispute and to try to help you to reach a consensus, but first I need to find out whether everyone involved is willing to ask for help. I would also note that this offer of assistance does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

So please let me know if you want a third-party to look at this dispute and offer advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I don't know that we need dispute resolution, but if you want to discuss the two sub-topics related to the reliability of sources and what material should and should not be included, as I started above you may. However, if dispute resolution is needed, I am willing to have you or another party mediate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I still have to catch up on the current issues in play, but thought I'd quickly chime in that I also thought Guy Macon did an admirable job entering into a prior dispute with this article and would welcome his assistance as well, if needed. Thanks also, Walter Görlitz, for making me aware of this current discussion.--CJ 01:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talkcontribs)
OK, let's start by agreeing that there will be no further edit warring and no further personal comments of any kind. Let's all agree to be calm, cool, and to base our arguments on reason and evidence.
Next, do we all understand the difference between Wikipedia making a claim (See WP:RS) with Wikipedia reporting that someone else made a claim (See WP:WEIGHT)? And do we all understand that WP:BLP overrides all other Wikipedia policies? Helpful hint: if you read those policies looking for justification for what you have already decided, you are doing it wrong. Don't try to make the policy fit your preferred version. Try to make your preferred version fit the policy. And not just a literal reading, either; try to understand the spirit of the policy as well as the letter. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. I was accused of calling the other editor a liar. I don't recall doing that. I did make the initial revert by stating that they were "Primary source lies" and I have shown how the subject of the source did not actually recant anything.
I have re-read the two policies and the guideline. I was aware of the material, so it was a fast read, although I am more familiar with WEIGHT being called UNDUE.
Thanks for taking the time to step in and do this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We are going to forget about who called who what and move on as if none of that happened. Also, let's not say that the movie or the rebuttal website contains lies. In fact, don't even say that either of those unreliable sources says something that is not true. Instead, ask "do we accurately report what the movie says, whether it is true or not? Do we accurately report what the website says, whether it is true or not?" let's build a couple of paragraphs here on the talk page that we all agree do that. The next step is to decide whether to put some or all of the result in the article, but first let's create those couple of paragraphs so we know what we are accepting/rejecting. Either one of you can start by writing up something that you think is correct, and I will verify that the sources say what you claim they say. May I assume that you both have a copy of the film? It isn't on Netflix but I can get a copy elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I do have a copy of the film and there are many excepts on YouTube.
The film has RSes that discuss it and, if you look above, that's what is discussed in the article, not what the film itself says. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I am going to wait and see if we get any comments from the other side now. If they choose not to participate in the talk page discussion, any edits they make will be undiscussed edits. If that turns out to be the case, the general rule is that, unless there is a clear policy-based reason to do otherwise, the person who is willing to argue his case gets his way. It's an imperfect system, but there is only so much you can do if someone chooses not to discuss things. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this particular issue, but have been a part of previous discussions on this article. My recollection of prior consensus that was reached re: "Fallen Angel" and the response website was that if "Fallen Angel" is to be kept in the article (and I think it should be) then the response site (Failed Angle, or its current incarnation) must also be a part of the article. Is that your recollection, Walter?--CJ 23:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talkcontribs)
I don't recall that. Perhaps scanning the archives is in order, but it is my understanding that only material that could be supported with RSes should be included in any article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In general, when we include material (backed by a reliable source, of course) that criticizes an individual or group, we include any response made by that individual or group, even it the response is not mentioned by any other sources. This is an example of the published views of an otherwise unreliable source being considered a reliable source on the topic of that source's published views. In this particular case, however, the question arises as to whether the website actually is a response made by the individual or group, or whether it was made by a third party, so whether to include or exclude still needs to be discussed and decided. As I said before, I would like to see the exact wording that the various parties thing the article should contain. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to the archived previous lengthy discussion. It would be nice to not have to plow this same field again, if possible: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talkcontribs) 14:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to get everyone to stop repeating the same arguments that have not swayed anyone in the past. Why would we want to revisit something that didn't work the first time?
This was covered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Larry Norman, and I see no reason why the conclusion I came to then would isn't still valid. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You and I are on the same page, Guy. Your conclusion at the time from your link above:
"I looked them over and I agree, neither the video or the website comes close to being a reliable source. I think that you could get away with mentioning that the video and the website exist, (or maybe not, I am open to debate on that) but it would be wrong to use the content of either in the article. Mentioning just one or just the other seems unfair to my eyes, but again I am open to debate on that. Using the content I am sure of: Don't. (Full disclosure: I met Larry Norman on the street of Hollywood in the late 60's. Don't remember much other than him advising me to stay away from drugs, which I was already doing)."
There are issues with both sources, making it a both or neither proposition. We went with including both last time and don't see a reason to change now. If, however, there is now sentiment to remove the response website from the article, the movie should similarly be removed. CJ 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Remove anywhere that the documentary is used as a source. I don't care. Anything else? You obviously have not read what I wrote above: it's only used to support one statement that is also supported by four other sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Firstly, I apologize for the delay in my reply. It's been a very busy weekend for me. Also thank you to Walter Gorlitz for creating the two headings above clarifying the dispute of the website and the dispute of the film. I'd like to request that those two sections of the talk page be kept here beyond the two week protection and the current dispute, (perhaps organized a little better later for future discussion), because on both matters there are still going to be items released and/or published by both parties, (the Larry Norman Estate/Biographer and those responsible for the film), in the future. I would like to note a couple things in response to Walter Gorlitz's comments directly above for our gracious mediator:

  • 1. In the lengthy discussion that Walter Gorlitz already linked to I cited the official Larry Norman website, (, which identifies the owner of the site, Allen Flemming, as the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate and also has a few articles published by Mr. Flemming himself. I cited this to backup the reliability of the website. I should think this would add reliability to documents/recordings on the site that come directly from the Larry Norman Estate, as documents Allen Flemming authority to publish them. That being said, Walter Gorlitz did note that the specific article pertaining the recantation was published by someone other than Flemming. The website is not a wiki that can be edited by just anyone, so maybe Mr. Flemming still had a hand in publishing it. Nonetheless, this warrants taking a closer look at the staff of the website. If our mediator or someone else that might have the time could help research the new website, that would be very much appreciated. I'll try to do so myself. I did e-mail its administrators, but I have yet to get a response from them. The old URL redirects to the new site we're discussing so I'm not sure why there is a dispute of the relation between the two. I think this just simple confusion. I also cited a link to site's official facebook page, (which is directly linked to BOTH the old URL and the current one), and to a cached/archived copy of the original website so they could be compared and verify they are the same site that has undergone a bit of a redesign. I welcome our mediator's input on these.
  • 2. Walter Gorlitz mentioned that some of the information the film is cited for also cited other sources. I think those other sources need to be rechecked, not because they are necessarily unreliable and/or false, but because I've seen some of this information published elsewhere, but incomplete. So yes, you get truth, but not the whole truth, and the truth taken out of context. A couple examples of refuted information with multiple sources:
    • A. The silly notion that Larry's brother is really his son. The film says this and there are other sources that publish the film, (and its makers), saying this. There's a video/radio recording of Larry's brother HIMSELF disputing this, and his birth certificate has been published to debunk this as well.
    • B. The assertion of Larry Norman's illegitimate son from Australia: The film says this and this person's mother is documented separately saying this, (not to mention the "son" himself.) There are documents, (saved e-mails back and forth for starters), written by Larry HIMSELF that deny this. These documents are published on and I believe other sources have published these as well. I'll have to see about digging up these other sources. Startropic1 (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've seen two different cuts of the documentary. Neither discussed Charles' relationship to Larry as is described in A above, and more importantly it's not stated in the article. The only thing the article states about Charlie is: "That year, he collaborated with his brother Charles on the album Stranded in Babylon'".
Similarly, B is not discussed in the article, but that was a topic of both cuts of the documentary that I saw.
Instead of trying to argue what the documentary does or does not say, and instead of arguing what should and should not be included in the article from the documentary and other websites, why not read what's in the article and try to stick to that? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I was merely using A & B as examples, not as specific points of debate. So I retreat to the point I was trying to make there: The other sources you mentioned should be double-checked for reliability and/or being "incomplete" as I described. Also Guy Macon asked if I have a copy of the film. I do not, nor have I seen the film in its entirety. I have seen the trailer and excerpts from the film. I researched the film and its maker(s) when it was announced & a trailer was a released. I've looked through the "Failed Angle" rebuttals and I also looked at documented claims made by the makers of the film, some of their claims evidentially not made in the film itself. Initially I had interest in seeing the film, which at the time there was no way for me to do so, but in doing the research I discovered the utter lack of credibility of the director and the highly suspect & universally panned body of work in his portfolio. I even went as far as researching his previous film about Lonnie Frisbee, and the subject of that film. Suffice it to say, my research eliminated any interest I had in seeing the film. That said, I'll end my commentary on Mr. Di Sabatino there, and do my best to stick to the topic(s) of discussion at hand. Startropic1 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Edits[edit]

As suggested in the above discussion, I am reviewing the entire article and listing proposed edits here. Please bear with me here, as I'm going to have to dig back into my research to relocate all the proper sources and this will likely not be accomplished in a single talk page edit. This began with a rebuttal to a specific part of the article by the site; with the aforementioned part of the article dealing primarily with the film Fallen Angel. This lead to other parts of the article that used the film as a source, but as Walter Gorlitz pointed out, there are other sources with the same information. Nonetheless I believe these parts need to be rechecked. There are three main points that really need rechecking:

Actually there was no suggestion of the sort above. What I stated was for you to tell me what the documentary was used to support in the article not what you felt like needed to be changed. This isn't on the table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

1. "Closing" of Solid Rock[edit]

To quote the article:

"Following a prolonged dispute with Solid Rock artist Daniel Amos, which ended in estrangement,[94][95] Solid Rock's business manager and several Solid Rock musicians organized an intervention with Norman in June 1980, which led him to begin closing the company.[84][96][97][98][99] Religious history professor Randall Ballmer attributed the company's demise to "idealism, marital difficulties, and financial naivete -- as well as changing musical tastes."[100]"

Solid Rock didn't exactly close per say. The company continues to sell Larry Norman's music as well as music by other artists on and that site is referenced on the official Larry Norman website: I'm familiar with the story about the dispute between Larry and those other artists. The Larry Norman Estate has a slightly different version of these events. I'll add their version here along with sources in my next edit.

That's a different company. From 1980 until 1989 Solid Rock was not able to sell any music. Some of the albums of its former catalogue were sold through Phydeaux. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding to this point directly here. Let me just back up and discuss this section as a whole:

Within this "controversy" over the closing of the original Solid Rock, there are actually multiple parts to the dispute: the band Daniel Amos, music artist Randy Stonehill, and lastly the meeting in June of 1980--where all these matters came to a head.

  • A. Daniel Amos
The band Daniel Amos claimed in the Fallen Angel film, and in other sources, that Larry caused delays with their album "Horrendous Disc", and ultimately caused the end of their career.
The original Failed Angle page on the subject, (archived here: and also appears IDENTICALLY at the new URL the here: ), cites the Daniel Amos Wikipedia article here: , which shows they released no less than TEN albums AFTER Larry supposedly ended their career.
Furthermore the current Solid Rock online shop continues to sell two different versions of the Horrendous Disc, you can see this here:
Not the sort of thing someone who wants one's career over would do eh?
I'll come back to this and revisit the actual dispute between Larry & Daniel Amos in a bit.
  • B. Randy Stonehill
The disputed history between Larry and Stonehill goes far beyond the scope of Solid Rock. It is a fact that Larry married Stonehill's ex-wife 2 years after she had divorced Stonehill. Over the years Stonehill has skewed the timeline & chronology of events between Larry's first divorce, Stonehill's divorce, and Larry's relationship with Stonehill's exwife. Court documents from Randy's divorce, (a copy of which can be found here: ), dispute Randy's claims on the matter, but this section is about Stonehill's involvement with Solid Rock. I will focus on this, but I'm going to have to come back to this later.
  • C. The 1980 Meeting & Dissolution
Actually, the Solid Rock Records Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of covering this, with plenty of sources. You can find it here:
I think mainly the Larry Norman article doesn't quite cover it properly, in its reasonable efforts to remain brief on the matter. It would be helpful if that bit, which I quoted above, included a link to the Solid Rock Records Wikipedia article. The quote used in the article here sort of puts all the blame squarely on the shoulders of Larry Norman. Certainly, Larry Norman did contribute to Solid Rock's problems, but the other parties involved were equally to blame. To quote the Solid Rock Records article:
 "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."
Furthermore the Solid Rock Records article notes that with nearly all parties involved in that meeting involved in divorce proceedings, (Larry included), Larry felt that ethically he should dissolve all professional contracts within the group. Furthermore he wanted all those artists to move on to better labels.
While Solid Rock as it was technically came to an end. Larry and his estate continued to use Solid Rock to this day for his own music as well as continued distribution of Solid Rock's entire back catalogue and merchandise. In an official capacity, Larry remained "signed" to Solid Rock beyond this meeting and for the remainder of his career until his death.
The Solid Rock Records Wikipedia article already has plenty of sources for everything I've mentioned here, so you can just refer to that article for sources. Startropic1 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow, in going through the archives of this talk page I found this:
"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)"
I don't mean to dig up the past/people's dirty laundry, but I think this is important to this discussion. The above is precisely how this topic should have been covered. I don't see in the archives where are consensus was met in that original discussion. Startropic1 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Larry Norman's Illegitimate Son From Australia[edit]

I'm well aware that the alleged mother and son have both claimed this outside of the Fallen Angel film. There are documented e-mails between Larry & the mother as well as between Larry & the "son." In these e-mails Larry denied being the boy's father. It is fact, acknowledged by both parties, that there has been no paternity test. Sources forthcoming.

There is nothing in the article about this topic. This is not a soapbox for you to preach about it either. Why are you digging this up? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you need to review the article yourself, let me quote:
"In 2008, the Christian magazine World reported that Norman had allegedly fathered a son with an Australian woman during a 1988 tour.[163][164]" Startropic1 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. The second source is a primary source and is not a RS. It's not from the documentary. The first source lists Charles' rebuttal which should suffice. The reporter discusses Norman's emails and so what can further replies from Norman achieve? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
So then using that source we can include Charles's rebuttal per Guy Macon's note that with criticism, a response should be included. Am I correct? Startropic1 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but what do you state? "...during a 1988 tour. Norman's brother Charles later dismissed the mother's claims."? It doesn't address Norman's earlier emails. And would you then add his later comments?
Charles concedes, however, that Daniel may be part of that very family. "[He] might be Larry's child," he said. "[He] might not. I have no idea."
What wording do you propose? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we ought to streamline this. Again, let me back up and cover this matter properly. Then we can properly slim it down:

While this is covered in the film, it is by no means covered exclusively by the film. The matter actually began a year after Larry Norman's death. In 2009 the Larry Norman Estate was served a lawsuit by Daniel Robinson and the Wallace family from Australia asserting that Daniel Robinson was in fact Larry Norman's illegitimate son. To make a long story short, 6 months later both parties appeared before a Judge and the lawsuit was withdrawn. This is one article from the original Failed Angle website that does NOT appear identically on . According to the Failed Angle article, Daniel's stepfather was threatening another lawsuit and therefore Mr. Flemming at the time had to withhold any documents from publication for obvious legal reasons. You can see the original article here: The counterpart article on is attributed to Allen Flemming and is a lot more forthcoming with information. In this case I don't even need to cite at all, because Allen Flemming went ahead and cited several external 3rd party sources.

Here are the sources he cited:

Public letter from Daniel's mother claiming Larry is Daniel's father:

Rebuttal by Larry's brother Charles Norman on

Youtube video of Daniel & his mother talking about Larry Norman:

Another rebuttal from Charles Norman that I already cited elsewhere:

Daniel seems to be a victim in all of this. Both parties agree that he doesn't know for absolute certain whether or not Larry is his father, but he would very much like to know. He has spoken directly with Charles, and per Mr. Flemming has been very cooperative with him. The main problem is Daniel's mother. In Charles's rebuttals he states that he has spoken directly with Daniel's mother, and she keeps changing her story about exactly when Daniel was allegedly conceived. Some of the dates she claims are simply impossible based on the well documented timeline of Larry's career and concert tour schedules. In the first rebuttal, Charles actually points out some errors made on the Larry Norman Wikipedia article that have since been cleaned up. In the second rebuttal, on, Charles says that Larry denied being Daniel's son, and that Larry asked for a DNA test while he was still alive. Charles doesn't want to participate in the DNA test because DNA from him would be inconclusive, and he's very protective of his DNA. There were conversations between Larry and Daniel via email that I'll have to relocate the mention of them later. They're not on either version of the rebuttal website. Startropic1 (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

3. The Fallen Angel film & the Failed Angle/ Rebuttal[edit]

Here we are at the crux of the discussion. First, one line in the existing article is really an incomplete statement:

"A cease and desist notice initiated by Norman's family temporarily prevented the film's public screening, and prompted Di Sabatino to file his own lawsuit against Solid Rock in March 2009.[174][175][176] Four months later, the case was settled out of court, allowing the film to be shown.[175][176][177]"

I'll have to relocate the quotes from the Larry Norman Estate, but they said they gave up the lawsuit because they didn't want to waste funds fighting a film that, "few people will likely see anyway." In my research I found that it might be warranted to note Mr. Di Sabatino's previous film pertaining to Lonnie Frisbee in this part of the article. Also there is currently no mention of the rebuttal in the form of the website originally at which has been changed to . Below are a number of sources authenticating this site:

Sources: Identifies Allen Flemming as "Larry Norman biographer Allen Flemming", and has some articles on site published by Mr. Flemming himself. redirects to the new site Failed Angle facebook page, which is linked to both versions of the aforementioned website. An interview with Larry's brother Charles, in which Charles talks about the Failed Angle site as well as Allen Flemming, and a number of the topics we're discussing here.

There will be plenty more sources added here in the future, including another audio/video interview involving Charles Norman. I don't know how much more material you guys need to authenticate the website, but believe me there are more sources I can and will dig up.

Please take this edit as a very rough draft of my proposed edit(s). I will be cleaning this up, adding all the necessary sources, and properly typing up this material exactly how it should be added to the actual article once a consensus has been reached. Any feedback would be appreciated. Startropic1 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Why they gave up the lawsuit is irrelevant. There is no statement to support Di Sabatino's for acccepting the settlement. In fact, there's no discussion on the settlement other than to say that it was out-of-court and that the film could be shown. You do realize that reference 175 is a link to the case itself and 176 is Charles' opinion as revealed in a conversation is a primary source. The other two references are dead links. There is nothing that needs to be added to this discussion either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No edits are needed at this point. They will either add POV into the article or include material that does not need to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Now, now... Startropic1 is free to attempt to improve the article just like anyone else is. The only thing that I would ask of both of you is that when you are about to add an edit that you know darn well someone will disagree with, even if they are completely wrong, bring it up on the article talk page and discuss it, trying to reach a compromise. Avoid a battleground mentality even with those who you have clashed with in the past. If you get stuck, drop me a line on my talk page and I will try to help. Also, see WP:INTERSPERSE and WP:INDENT This includes signatures. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that he's not discussing improving the article, he's pushing a POV and once again trying to expand the article with primary sources and tangential issues.
There is a great deal of support already for the reason that the label closed. I could easily add The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music It "was not a commercially successful venture" (p.638) Stonehill and Daniel Amos "left the label". I'm sure some of my hard copy books have similar documentation.
Again, the editor insists on discussing something that he already states has no support (Daniel Robinson). Why he wants to do that is unimaginable to me and is simply looking to rake muck through the article. You might as well mention the other unsupported claim (that not even the documentary discusses) about Charles Norman being his son and not his brother as it has about as much support.
And we've already determined that there is nothing in the article about the controversial issues raised in the documentary and only states that it was a controversial film. There is therefore no reason to have a lengthy rebuttal from the site, essentially a WP:SOAPBOX for the website. If a third-party, reliable source can be found to support the claims on the site then WP:BALANCE may be in order by mentioning the equally controversial site, but without entering into details contained therein.
So don't tell me that "Startropic1 is free to attempt to improve the article" when there's no hint of improvement in any of his suggestions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
And more to the point, the discussions started above about the reliability of the biographer's site has not been addressed and was the sole reason the article was locked. And then the editor changed topics to try to claim that the documentary should not be used as a source in the article when it wasn't. The editor needs to stay focused on one topic at a time and carry one discussion to conclusion unless he's admitting that the other issues are resolved and he was wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that he can make the same "he's pushing a POV" claim about you, right? Neither one of you is going to get away with violating Wikipedia policy on sourcing, weight, NPOV, etc. while I am watching (although you may have to lay it out for me with diffs -- I am not going to make a career out of studying old edits and old talk page discussions.)
Re: "So don't tell me that Startropic1 is free to attempt to improve the article"; Startropic1 is free to attempt to improve the article. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you don't like it, start your own encyclopedia. Please note that I am not taking sides here; I would tell him the same thing if he said that you can't edit.
Let me be a bit more blunt. Without taking sides, I expect Startropic1 to discuss any edit that he knows Walter Görlitz won't like here on this talk page as explained in WP:BRD. I expect Walter Görlitz to discuss any edit that he knows Startropic1 won't like here on this talk page as explained in WP:BRD. I expect both of you to behave exactly like WP:CONSENSUS tells you to, and I expect both of you to deal with disagreements exactly like WP:DR tells you to. If either of you refuses, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia (not by me -- I have no power or authority other than persuasion -- but by an uninvolved administrator). Read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and change your behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, it was noted by Guy Macon above that "In general, when we include material (backed by a reliable source, of course) that criticizes an individual or group, we include any response made by that individual or group, even it the response is not mentioned by any other sources." I am merely following this statement. Before I started editing this article, I noted it was a bit one sided on certain subjects, but in fairness the article did note in many of these cases that these items were "alleged" and/or "controversial", thus noting that these parts were not proven to be 100% fact. At present there are, however, no rebuttals. I'm working to fix that here--with acceptable sourcing. As for me moving away from the original point of dispute: Sometimes when you investigate one flaw in a story, you begin to find others. That's just how research works. I haven't abandoned the original point either. I have repeatedly cited many sources authenticating but no one has commented on these sources. I added a few above that I hadn't cited here before, and I can continue to add more sources in the future. I don't know much more proof you need to show that and its former address at are a legitimate rebuttal source. Furthermore, Walter Gorlitz pointed out that the site was sourced in other areas of the article before. Why does a mere change of a URL make it no longer accepted? Startropic1 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Please remove the carriage return between your comment and your signature. The signature needs to be on the same indent level as the comment. See WP:INDENT.
Actually, a change of URL does make a difference. See WP:V. They way we handle that is as follows; whenever possible, we use a URL to a reliable source. If that URL goes bad, whenever possible we use a URL to If no archive is available and the only place left is an unreliable source, we use that, adding a note such as "originally on posted", and we make sure that the new document still says what we claim it does, just in case someone has made subtle changes to it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
What if a site merely changes its address? In any case this can be resolved in one of two ways:
  • 2. An archived copy of the original . This actually does exist, and I did cite it somewhere above. Here it is again to save time though:

Here's another place it has been archived, courtesy of the always reliable Wayback Machine:

All being said, it is entirely fair to compare the two, (especially considering changes have been made), and properly authenticate any material we may need to cite from . Walter Gorlitz did raise a valid point near the beginning that one item I cited was apparently posted by someone other than Allen Flemming. Furthermore, if it is preferred that it be noted that cited material appeared at both URLs, ( and, as you suggest, that can certainly be arranged. Under the circumstances maybe such clarification would be wise. Startropic1 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Given that both sources have serious issues with being RS, if they are to be included as part of the article I recommend the following: Do away with a separate heading for the "Fallen Angel" doc and replace it with a "Controversies" section that mentions both the documentary and the rebuttal site. Keep information on each brief, basically noting their existence and little more. Short of that, they should both be removed in their entirety.
There is, however, no reasonable rationale for including only one but not the other, which is what we have now with the article in its locked state. I recommend adding back the previous inclusion of the rebuttal site while the rest of this gets sorted out. CJ 18:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talkcontribs)
The film is notable, which is why it has its own section. The websites to rebut it are not.
Disagree that it was notable. It was a self-published documentary with no distribution. CJ 00:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Here notable is used in the Wikipedia sense: other reliable sources have written about it. It clearly meets that bar of notability. If you'd rather have an entire article about it and link to that, I'm sure that could be arranged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it meets the "significant coverage" test for a standalone, but I'd be happy to review an article on the documentary if you are working on one. Shoot me a link on my talk page. CJ 02:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I never stated I was working on such an article, I was asking if that's what you'd rather have. I'd be happy if you'd answer the question and stop using periphrasis to avoid what you know is the case: the documentary is mentioned because it has RSes while the websites are not mentioned because no such sources exist for them. Of course, that was what was asked for above, but neither you nor Startropic1 have chosen to take that discussion up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You said that you could arrange for Fallen Angel to be a standalone article, which I took to mean you were working on such a project. If your aren't, that's fine, I'm just unclear why you brought it up at all as it has no relevance to this discussion. I have already offered the reasons for including the rebuttal site. Perhaps you could respond to that instead? CJ 13:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talkcontribs)
I'm sorry. I never wrote that. You certainly are unclear. It is relevant because the documentary is notable and sufficient for an article, but I will not be writing such. Feel free to read what I wrote. The language is clear. If you need to be pointed there, here's WP:N. My response was to be clear why the documentary has a place and the two other websites do not. It's also a case made by at least one other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"If you'd rather have an entire article about it and link to that, I'm sure that could be arranged." CJ 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
If this diversion is at an end, can we return to topic? CJ 14:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talkcontribs)
I looked the other way when you adjusted my previous edit to insert your comments but this time I'm undoing your modification this time.
You may feel justified in your misinterpretation and taking my words out of context, but what I wrote was clear and taken in context it is obvious what I stated. Even when you took it out of context, the verb tense does not imply anything, and it clearly doesn't state who would make such an article if it were deemed needed.
Of course, the two sites are not reliable sources and have none to support their inclusion in this or any other article. So if you're done with your diversions, let's return to the topics at hand which are in two sub-sections above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What other controversies should be listed in this proposed "controversies section". As far as I can see, it only discusses the documentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd be content if neither were there. But both should be included if one is. CJ 00:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's try and refocus and stay on track. Walter, let me know if I am understanding your point: Your contention is that the Fallen Angel documentary is WP:RS, and as such has a place in this article wheres the rebuttal site is not WP:RS and therefore has no place in this article. Is this correct? CJ (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Now you guys have got me confused. I thought we established somewhere above that both the film and the website(s) held the same weight, (the "both or neither" argument.) The original "Failed Angle" website is cited elsewhere in the existing article, as I and Walter Gorlitz have both noted.
As far as this proposed "Controversies" section, I agree that this would be a good solution. I already outline the 3 points of controversy above:
  • 1. The Solid Rock closure/artist feud, which I will attempt to clarify better
  • 2. The claims of Larry fathering an illegitimate son in Australia
  • 3. The Fallen Angel film itself and the rebuttal site(s)
I also agree with trying to streamline the information and not have a drawn out detailed back and forth between the two parties. I think, however, that there is a middle ground we can establish between simply saying "these controversies exist" and the aforementioned drawing things out in every detail that we all agree would be very much excessive. I will flesh out these three points better here on the talk page, with sources, and from there we can see about streamlining the material for inclusion in the article itself. Perhaps in the end we might want to make a separate article for "controversies" but let's wait and discuss that "bridge" when we get to it.
One thing that I am missing here is that someone noted that there was a previous discussion about the article getting too long. I have no intention of disputing the consensus reached in that matter, but it would be helpful if someone could fill me in so I don't inadvertently start stepping into the same length problem again with the edits we're discussing now. Startropic1 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No Clubfoot Johnson you don't understand my point. The documentary is not a reliable source but there are reliable sources that have written about the documentary. I stated that in the discussion above that no one has bothered to respond to.
Startropic1, Clubfoot pointed out that an earlier discussion, which can be found in the archives, concluded that if the documentary is discussed the attack website should be included. That is clearly not an acceptable position either as only RSes should be included. Further to that point, the documentary is only discussed as being controversial and none of its points of discussion are added to the article in direct reference to the documentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a couple things I should point out here. 1. As Clubfoot Johnson pointed out, the film has yet to be published by a third party--only self published by the director himself. I found a claim on IMDB that I have yet to properly authenticate that the film tour, (of public showings), was cut dramatically short and ended "due to lack of interest." It would seem, if I understand the Wikipedia policy correctly, that the film's publication fails Wikipedia's requirements even moreso than the rebuttal website. Furthermore, the sources you have cited documenting the film merely document the film's existence. They do not corroborate any of the information the film itself is cited for.
2. On the subject of the rebuttal website, I actually found something interesting about the biographer Allen Flemming. It would seem that he has been published by a (possibly) reliable third party after all. The current front page of cites the article being displayed there, (written by Allen Flemming), was originally published in a magazine called Greater Than Magazine. I'll have to research the merit & nature of this magazine. The article itself doesn't really pertain to our current discussion, but perhaps it verifies Mr. Flemming's reliability? I found something else in rereading the interview with Charles Norman on : In the interview Charles states that the original Failed Angle site used the same HTML template as the official website. He also states that he supplied Allen Flemming with the information found on the Failed Angle site and also "worked on the site with Flemming." You can see this here: A 3rd party publication authenticating the Failed Angle site, no? I think I've got more here than the film has in its corner. Startropic1 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Several points (addressed to all participants, not just to the comment above this one):
  • Without naming names, WP:CIVIL is not optional. If I see any further incivility, there will be consequences. And if that isn't enough, be aware that the person who make personal comments often loses the argument and doesn't get his way when when it gets to the point where an administrator intervenes.
  • Re: Greater Than Magazine, if it is the one mentioned at ("an online magazine") it appears to be basically a blog. The only other possibility I could find was talking about "a Michigan-based, arts-and-culture publication called Greater Than Magazine", but I would need to see some actual evidence that this is the Greater Than Magazine we are talking about.
  • Re: "...concluded that if the documentary is discussed the attack website should be included. That is clearly not an acceptable position either as only RSes should be included." Wrong. If (and this is not certain) the documentary is to be included, and if (as appears to be the case) the website can be confirmed to be associated with the Norman family/estate, that alone makes the website notable enough for inclusion. People and organizations sometimes get critical material published about them. Sometimes that material meets our standards and is included in the article. Think about the reason behind our standards. We don't serve our readers by including just any criticism, no matter how notable. The reader needs to see significant criticism. Once we have determined that a certain critical source meets our standards and include it, do we serve our readers by excluding any official response? No. We do not. It is a basic matter of fairness. If Wikipedia reports negative information about an individual, group, or organization, it would be unfair and unjust to not report any response. The fact that the criticism is notable makes the response notable. If anyone doubts me on this we can get an official response, but I already know what the answer will be from watching dozens of similar cases go to dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for you take on this, Guy Macon. I agree that the rebuttal website must be included if the documentary is included in the article. Given that this was also the previously arrived at consensus - going back more than 2.5 years - I don't think that the rebuttal website should have been removed unilaterally without additional discussion or attempt to reach a different consensus. I'd like to see it returned to the article per the previous consensus while these other issues are sorted out. As it stands now, readers don't have access to a response to the claims made by the documentary. CJ (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen anything to support the statement that a self-published website or book associated with the subject of an article has a free pass and does not need RSes.
Further, there only one thing supported by the documentary, and as stated above, that one thing has secondary backing from two sources that are unrelated to a discussion of the documentary. I'm fine with removing the three sources. The documentary is not discussed in this article except to say that it is "controversial" and then goes on to describe some of the issues related with the making and its aftermath. Nothing of the contents is discussed. This is what Startropic1 appears to be claiming. I'm not sure what needs to see WP:BALANCE in that discussion since it's entirely neutral. However, if we can find any source that says the website is important then we should certainly use that to support the counter-claims made there, otherwise, the best we can do is state
Norman's official biographer created a website to counter several claims made in the documentary.
However, no link to either website would be appropriate without adding a direct link to the documentary. Am I correct in that assumption?
So what sort of disservice are we offering readers with what's present. I have repeatedly asked for what needs to be changed and instead I am offered long arguments about things that aren't in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems this problem is a little farther reaching than anyone in this discussion was aware of. I've noticed over the course of reviewing the information pertaining to all the "controversies", that there are in fact several other articles on Wikipedia that have cited the original Failed Angle site for various things. I'm not going to debate any of those other articles here, I just thought it was worth noting that seemingly a number of other editors already accepted the rebuttal site(s) as a valid source.
RE: I have repeatedly asked for what needs to be changed and instead I am offered long arguments about things that aren't in the article. I'll admit this whole discussion has snowballed a bit and it has become a lot of material to digest. As I mentioned before though, finding other issues when examining something is just what happens when one conducts proper research. When I made the original edit that got this entire discussion started, it was a starting point. There are other one-sided claims throughout the article pertaining to the 3 points I have been focusing on. These also needed to be addressed, but a dispute arose upon the first attempt to address one of these one-sided statements. It is also correct that these one-sided statements have been made via sources other than the film. The problem has become that all these parties making these claims against Larry Norman came together at a single point being the Fallen Angel film. So this poorly sourced film became the focal point of this discussion, when indeed the real issue is fair documentation of these "controversies" from both sides. Unfortunately these claims are being made via the one-sided film on many sites, including youtube, so a lot of people are seeing the accusations without the rebuttals. Wikipedia is certainly not supposed to be the means to rectify such a problem, but as it has been pointed out, it is at minimum supposed to provide fair coverage from both sides. I agree with what seems to be the consensus in reorganizing into a section, (or if necessary a separate article), about "controversies." Startropic1 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking a "Controversies" section would suffice at this point, but depending on how it takes shape spinning it off into a separate article may make sense. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with, as I think it will be a welcome improvement to the article. CJ (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE begins, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We need RSes that support Norman's claims and to the best of my knowledge, the material you're stating doesn't meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here, because we're talking about the claims of a group vs the rebuttals of an individual, (albeit via those left to make those rebuttals on his behalf.) Thus, Larry Norman's side would always be the minority. WP:UNDUE describes the views of two differing groups and doesn't seem to work very well in the context of a discussion about an individual. In any case, we've established above that Failed Angle is associated with the Larry Norman family. I have cited sources other than the two versions of Failed Angel, are you now suggesting that all those other sources are also unreliable? All these sources have been accepted for several other articles on Wikipedia, so clearly there must be a consensus that these are all RSes. Startropic1 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── From what I read, "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." it's exactly the situation. :WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't mean it's valid anywhere. I'll take it to RSN and then all use of the website will be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Link to RSN case: Startropic1 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about an individual, of which the Flat Earth concept example is not. Apples and oranges. Anyway, I've added sources to the RSN post, even though it would appear a consensus was already reached on the matter on multiple article talk pages to deem it a RS. Startropic1 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
What about the other sources I've cited? Can we agree they're RSes, or do we have to take them to RSN as well? Startropic1 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source permits the use of Failed Angle/ , making the RSN seemingly moot in this instance. The RSN approved the source, so work on the "controversies" section can continue in any event. I already added material to my 3 points above, but obviously things will be slimmed down considerably before adding anything to the actual article. Startropic1 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Norman would have to be a living person for BLP to apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Official Responses / Rebuttals[edit]

I have posted an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC: Official Responses / Rebuttals concerning notability/reliability requirements for responses/rebuttals. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So far the results of that RfC are overwhelmingly in favor of including responses by living persons whether or not they are otherwise notable or reliable, subject to the restrictions listed at WP:BLPSELFPUB. The results for organizations, groups or (relevant to this dispute) the relatives/estate of deceased individuals are roughly 50:50 so far, and given the arguments there I am seriously considering changing my position above. I would welcome discussion as to whether I should do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional time and work you have put into clarifying policy as it relates to this issue, Guy. I have no problem whatsoever removing the rebuttal site if mention of the documentary is also removed. Neither is RS, and eliminating them does not detract from the article, IMO. Leaving just the reference to the documentary causes more problems than it solves. Removing both easily resolves this issue. I think it may even have been the solution you proposed 2.5 years ago, although I may be remembering that incorrectly. CJ (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The only problem that would remain is that there are still criticisms from other sources that would still need to be addressed. The interview with Charles Norman on Cross Rhythms has been approved, and I can certainly construct some rebuttals with that alone. I am still in the process of gathering other sources as well. Startropic1 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will suggest that you take care in crafting any "rebuttal". The Cross Rhythms article can only be used to support direct statements and not straying into other areas. We don't want to add undue weight. The hard edits made by Theoldsparkle 6 and 13 months ago and other editors earlier did a good job of reducing the fan cruft and we don't need to expand this article again. Keep it simple and short. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I've found that some things I'd be covering are already covered well in other articles, so what is added to this article will easily be kept short(er) from the start by simply linking to those articles. This is assuming that by pruning any disputed sources, no pertinent information is removed as a result. Even if in the end, we cannot use the Failed Angle site(s) as sources directly, they do prove to be a good starting point in researching the matter as a whole. I've found a few alternative sources by being redirected to them by Failed Angle. I would also suggest we prune with caution. Alternate sources can be found, and I would like an opportunity to continue to research Failed Angle. I have a few questions about the current site myself, (ie. the authors on there other than Flemming), and if there's even the smallest chance any part of it can at some point be authenticated as a RS, we should probably avoid having to go back and forth on additions & subtractions. Startropic1 (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"Pertinent material" is determined by the sources, not by a point of view. We pull information from sources, we don't look for sources to prove our points. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists isn't an excuse to add that same stuff here. In fact, if you know the sources are not reliable, it would be better to remove it from those other locations rather than duplicate them here. This is not the first time that you've stated something like "I've found that some things ... in other articles", and in one case stated that it used the documentary as a source. That's a big red flag to me. I can't speak for other editors, but if you know of problem sources in other articles you should be removing them or alerting others to do so.
As for linking to Wikipedia articles, you have the habit of copying the entire URL, when to "wikilink" you just need to put brackets ([[ ]]) around the article name. See Help:Link.
If material cannot be supported by RSes, it should be marked as such or simply removed, particularly if it's detrimental to a living person. If RSes become known or available at a later date, any edit could simply add the material at that time while avoiding the tendency to add fan cruft.
Finally, I find it deeply disheartening that you have become a student of a site that has a singular point of view on the subject and don't seem to be willing to look at material that has an opposing point of view. You should see at least one cut of the documentary, particularly since you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what it actually contains, and read general publications on the topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I already researched that film, and I have no interest in seeing someone tailoring quotes/interviews to fit his needs. I prefer to research the subject matter discussed in the film independently. The director's previous film was a work about Lonnie Frisbee. He praised Frisbee in that film and condemned Larry Norman in Fallen Angel. It seemed to me that the director was upset that Larry Norman ended up being the more prominent of the two men, (Frisbee and Norman), to come out of the "Jesus movement" of their era. Of course, this is just my own conjecture and I certainly don't claim it to be absolute fact. Have you ever seen the Frisbee film? Startropic1 (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
You're not researching the subject matter discussed in the film independently though. You're relying on Norman's word.
You clearly don't understand why Frisbee was written-out of the history of the Jesus movement and particularly Calvary Chapel and The Vineyard. That's OK. Read the article and you may get an idea. I've seen the documentary and read material on him as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Request: Album Liner Notes Sources[edit]

An interesting habit of Larry Norman was including autobiographical and other historical information, (among other things), in the liner notes of his albums as well as other albums released by Solid Rock. I know of at least one such example of this that pertains directly to the "controversies" section I'm working on. I have a number of physical copies of these, but my personal collection is far from complete. If one could provide me with sources of these, it would be greatly appreciated. These can be submitted here or on my talk page, whichever you prefer.

Note: None of this material will automatically be considered a RS. I am aware of at least one or two examples of this that will likely not be reliable and thus I will be examining every relevant liner note very carefully for reliability and/or merit. So let's please not debate from the start whether or not any of these are RSes, as I am already going to put them under heavy scrutiny myself. Startropic1 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any source that has collected his "linear" notes (as he called them). I do have much of his 70s Solid Rock material and a few CDs. Let me know which you need and I'll see if they're in my collection, scan them and post them to either DropBox or my web site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The ones I'm most interested in examining are from any Daniel Amos, Randy Stonehill, or People! albums released via Solid Rock. I believe both Daniel Amos & Stonehill also contributed on some of Larry's albums, so those would also be near the top of the list. I have the following albums on CD, (with linear notes), already: All 3 Compleat Trilogy albums, (Only Visiting This Planet, So Long Ago in the Garden, & In Another Land), Upon This Rock, Copper Wires, Remixing This Planet, and the Anthology album that was released posthumously. Startropic1 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)