Talk:Larry Norman

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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) 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)

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)