Talk:Larry Norman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Norman's medical history

Recognising the claims and counterclaims regarding Norman's health over the years, I had postponed putting this in the LN WP article. However, it would be good to discuss Walter's comments: "He called it bipolar trauma which is not bipolar disorder. In fact, there is no such thing as "bipolar trauma" so it could be Larry's mistake or another lie." I am comfortable with the current quotation - it is the reporter's characterisation of what LN told her. My reading of "bipolar trauma" is a bipolar condition caused by trauma. I'm certainly no authority on this topic, and there seems to be divergence about the causes of bipolar disorders. See Cheryl Jones,, "Can a Trauma Cause Bipolar Disorder?", (Search for it using Google as WP is blocking the link). I think more research needs to be done, both as to exactly what LN claimed, and then its affects and cause.(smjwalsh (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)).

Jones writes: "Can Trauma Cause Bipolar Disorder? The cause of bipolar disorder is unknown. Researchers believe several factors contribute to a chemical imbalance in the brain, resulting in the cyclic mood swings. Trauma may be a factor (emphasis mine) contributing to bipolar disorder. Researchers have found that people with bipolar disorder tend to have a history of physical or sexual abuse, and many also have post-traumatic stress disorder as well (PTSD). Head trauma or brain injury is not associated with bipolar disorder, although it may cause other types of mood or behavioral disturbances." Note the final sentence also. LN attributes his mood swings etc to the US215 accident in 1978, whereas DDS believes the Normans had a history of mental illness (no substantiation offered except Pamela's hearsay comments), and others (perhaps even DDS) attribute to childhood abuse eg verbal and physical due to his childhood environment.(smjwalsh (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

I have also seen PTSD have something called "bipolar trauma" in relationship to post-traumatic stress disorder, but that's not what you get when something hits you on the head. The former is a psychological condition, the latter is a physical condition. So did Larry have PTSD which caused "bipolar trauma" or did he develop bipolar disorder which had "bipolar trauma" as a side-effect or was it something else. I'm becoming very concerned with all of the answers and quotes from Larry years after-the-fact as well. It seems very much like revisionist history again and again, which this entire "bipolar trauma" episode amounts to as well. the Encyclopedia of CCM quotes Larry's 1989 CCM interview that "he had suffered brain damage" when the 747 panel fell on him after landing in LA (p. 638). They follow that up with "A few journalists have wondered whether the story is exaggerated—partly because it was not reported for over ten years and then seemed to provide a convenient excuse for Norman's virtual absence from the music scene." Norman's response is that he was checked-out by paramedics and it wasn't until he was checked-out years later that it was discovered that he had "bipolar disorder" (p. 639). It then continues to discuss his heart condition. Again, the term is very uncommon in the literature (only 89 references via Google. 20 of which are about Larry!). It's nonsense. I don't mind the phrase being in the article, but linking it to bipolar disorder is a non-starter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Main article photograph

I have obtained permission from Charles Norman to use a professional photograph of Larry from their archives in place of the main article picture that is currently in the article. Is there any objection to replacing it? Whokilledduncan (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not from me. While the current photo should be included (perhaps in a later section dealing with his later years), it would be good to have a photo more representative of LN in his prime.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC))

Me either. The question is whether the copyright cops on Wikipedia will raise any issues with it. The estate of Larry Norman may be in possession of this professional photograph, but do they hold the copyright to it? The photographer may hold its copyright. If it's approved for use, then we should certainly include it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Norman's 2nd marriage

Earlier I had expressed confusion about the date of Norman's marriage to Sarah Finch. Was it n 27 April 1982 (as indicated by California wedding records), or April 1984 as indicated in several interviews with Norman (although he never actually says the year). Until recently the Failed Angel website had Norman beginning to date Finch in April 1982 and them marrying two years later. I have noticed that the relevant page (http://www.failedangle.com/site/randy/randy.html) has recently been amended to reflect the April 1982 date (but indicates it was on 29 April), with reference to them dating removed. It is good to see that the LN WP article (and the research behind it) has prompted the change, and the willingness of Flemming to modify his site in view of better information. I still have not been able to track down a source that indicates the date of their divorce.(smjwalsh (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

That is good news. Should we be trusting the site if Wikipedia has better research than it ;) ? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One swallow does not make a summer. The error was that of Flemming (in this case). It may have come because of a mis-reading of the documents, or something else, perhaps a rush to get the other side of the discussion into the public arena. The discussions taking place hopefully will ensure a better and more balanced biography. I cannot discern anyone's motives perfectly. The willingness to change material, and provide documentation, is the hallmark of a willingness to get to the truth. Even DDS has changed the content of Fallen Angel (to his credit), and is on record as being willing to stop his documentary should a DNA test confirm LN is the biological father of Daniel Robinson.(smjwalsh (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

Further, it will be good to realise that a DNA test cannot conclusively prove Daniel's paternity, but could certainly eliminate LN. (smjwalsh (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Fallen Angel vs Failed Angle

I have just reverted what I am sure are good faith edits, but they really do seem both POV and unsubstantiated to me. I thought the previous consensus position (see above), is a fair and accurate description of both DDS's documentary and Flemming's website.

This is the material removed: "The film airs interviews by many who were close to Norman including his first wife, Pamela, Randy Stonehill, Terry Scott Taylor, and Philip Mangano, the business manager of Solid Rock. Norman himself refused to be interviewed."

I have no problems restoring the first sentence, but would want documentation from both sides as to Norman's non-participation..

"Di Sabatino 's first documentary on Lonnie Frisbee included a great deal of Norman's music. Norman did not approve and made a conscious effort to derail the project. So when Di Sabatino started on the new documentary on Larry's life, Norman refused to appear in it. As a direct result of of not having appeared nor allowing family to appear in the film, it, as Norman put it, the film contained. ... Much of the material having been written years after the events they describe appears to be an extension of Norman's "penchant for revisionist history, which is always entertaining if nothing else."

Let's document both DDS and his detractors claims. The assertion that much of the material was written years later is way too general. We need to be specific. No doubt certain claims by LN were made years afterwards publicly eg airplane accident and bipolar trauma, but as it would have read it may lead on to believe LN faked the documents on Failed Angle. The accusation of revisionism is just that - an accusation. Let's identify those matters that have shifted over the years - changed with the telling.(smjwalsh (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

POV?

There was no POV in what I added. It was stating only what was recorded in WP:V sources, just like the POV that's being cited from the Failed Angle web site. If those sources go everything from that propaganda site must as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that what you added was your POV. I absolutely assume good faith on your part. However, it is certainly DDS's POV. You display a bias or POV when you characterise a particular site as "propaganda" which is a pejorative in common understanding. I see both dueling sources as advocates of a position. One may be more right than another, but both definitely have a POV - a stated purpose. The fair way is to quote/summarise both positions in such a way that those who hold those positions would agree is a fair representation. One way to do that is direct quotations with sufficient context to ensure accurate representation. As an historian I tend to give far more credence to contemporary documentary evidence more than to eye witness accounts presented decades afterwards. That's one of the reason that LN's detractors question the damage from his airplane accident - the gap in public testimony. It can be seen as revisionist. Likewise with the interviews in Fallen Angel. There is the possibility of faulty memory, selective memory, selective editing, and always the problem of perspective. Even when people see the same incident they do not always see it in the same way. It is legitimate to report that LN refused to cooperate with DDS, but to attribute motives is either OR or POV. If LN gives a reason, then quote it, even if the rationale is questioned. In which case, indicate that the claim is disputed. If Fallen Angle presents primarily one side of the story, acknowledge that unless/until others respond with their side. Courts of law allow the accused to confront their accuser. As LN is dead, his documents, and own words, and his apologists speak for him.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

Further, as regards WP:V, note: WP "policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." This was the basis for my removal of the material. It is certainly contentious material. These matters are (and have been debated elsewhere for the last few years). This then requires the editor to meet the burden of proof. Some of the matters can be easily resolved if DDS was to publish ALL correspondence regarding the Frisbee soundtrack, and the letters to those invited to participate in Fallen Angel, and their responses, as well as a copy of any documents showing LN or his representatives refused to cooperate or encouraged others to do so.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

Walter, I am disappointed that despite my request for discussion that 42 minutes after my request, and several minutes after you posted your rejoinder on this page, you merely undid my edit. Rather than just undo your original edit and the reversion you made, I am trying to avoid escalation into an edit war. Clearly some of the points made are contentious. Can we agree on that? DDDS says one thing and Flemming says another. Therefore, because I challenged your contribution, the burden of evidence (according to WP) is on you. However, I have tried to salvage as much of your contribution as I could. The points you would like to make (or DDS would like you to make?) can be made quoting specific claims of LN's detractors. See eg how I used the OC Weekly material but indicated they were alleging it (based on their interview with DDS and a viewing of Fallen Angel). In the OC Weekly article, it actually overstates what DDS says in the film. The film implies adultery but does not explicitly state it (DDS must have good legal advice as while LN is dead, Sarah is alive and well living in Oregon. OC Weekly over reaches (sensationalises) beyond even what DDS is willing to assert publicly. It makes it a less credible source, however I am willing to accept it until a better source can be found. Why not do the hard yards (miserable metres?) and research for yourself what is said in various places by the dramatis personae? It is hard work but ultimately more satisfying. Why not do what DDS is either unable or unwilling to do (for whatever reasons - perhaps even legitimate).(smjwalsh (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

So if I understand this correctly, anything that paints Mr. Norman in an unkindly manner it painted as sensationalistic. There were no unsourced contentious materials. Yes, they were contentious, but they were source. Just like the contentious sourced material you've been adding to make Larry look like a man under attack. I could challenge all of the material that Larry dreamed-up, but I won't because I don't have the time not the willingness to dig through the minutia of material you add, minute-by-minute. Nor do I have the time to go through all of Larry's self-invented conspiracies as presented on his apologetic web site. I have grown tired of fact-verifying each statement. Suffice it to say that Larry was an unwell man. That is the conclusion of the Encyclopedia of CCM at the very least and also the personal opinion of at least one of his former associates with whom I shared a car ride. I am not defending David. The fact that I know him and that he trusts me is not because I side with him. Nor do I side against Larry. I respect the man. However the truth lies between whet the two sides have presented. This article relies too heavily on Larry's bias however and as a result gets a failing grade, despite all of the hard work put forward by the two recent editors. If all of the POV material was removed, it would contain only his discography. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do not understand my point correctly. As the one endeavouring to communicate the point, it is my responsibility to do so. If I have failed, I apologise. My comments regarding sensationalism refer to one particular part of one particular article - no more and no less. Ask DDS, I'm sure he would agree it has mischaracterises what he has said in the film on that point. Walter, there were unsourced contentious sentences and clauses that you contributed, but which you have endeavoured to remedy since. Thanks. I realise that perhaps you have not had the time to read each of the many edits I have made, but look at the section on Randy Stonehill. You will see Randy speak for himself. If I can be faulted it would be that I have focused on Stonehill's interviews first before trolling through LN's. Likewise I have inserted the comments of the members of People! that both support and question LN's version on his separation from them. I can point to many more attempts to be even-handed. I may not have always succeeded, but as the article is a work in progress it relies on editors like you to point out any bias you perceive. It has been helpful to have both you and whokilledduncan (who is obviously close to the Norman family) looking over my shoulder. Again, read about the limitations of Encyclopedias. They are secondary sources, not primary sources, and are not even specialist books - they are general, and the standards there are often even less than for WP. Look again at Powell's ECCM. While there is a bibliography, there are no footnotes or other scholarly apparatus. Therefore, it is best to look for better sources. Everyone (including LN and his family) agree that LN was unwell. What is disputed is the nature, causes, duration, severity, and effects of his condition. For every car companion with one opinion, I daresay there is a Norman ally, associate or family member who may contradict what is claimed. I agree the "truth is out there" (as they said on the X Files) possibly with LN's UFO, and that it more likely does lie between the polarities presented. I would appreciate you identifying areas of bias you see in the article as you have time, and I will work through them as I can.(smjwalsh (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Dead Vs Living

The strictest WP guidelines favour the reputation of the living in biographical materials. This reflects US defamation legislation that protects the living. However, no such protection is offered those who are deceased. However, in other nations this may not be the case. In any case, I believe we ought to afford the same standards in writing about the deceased as we do the living, who can sue WP. Potential litigation ought not be the basis of our position.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

So sue me. What you just wrote was a veiled threat. I don't take kindly to them. I have had enough with supporting the self-deluded lies of Larry norman and the site created in honour of his self-created memory. What I have added to the lede cannot be assumed to be out-of-place, not is it POV as it's almost entirely a direct quote from the Encyclopedia of CCM, which neither Norman nor his estate have seen fit to litigate against. Surely you cannot suggest that it's POV when describing Mr. Norman. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I sincerely apologise if you perceive a veiled threat anywhere. What I was clumsily trying to say was that WP had their policies in place to avoid litigation. The ones who could sue would not be me (I have no standing - I am not damaged by anything written about LN), but rather, in the case of the living, the subject of the article. What you put in the lede is not POV, although it is unsourced in the Encyclopedia. The reason Encyclopedias would be considered poor sources for scholarly articles is their general nature. So the quotation remains in the article and readers can make their own evaluation. A good reading of the WP article will reveal the areas where there are disputed accounts, with both sides presented and allowed to speak (where possible) in their own words. I'm sure there will be those reading it that will reach the same conclusion as you. There are very specific guidelines in WP as to what should be in the lede - it should establish the notability of the subject, and summarise the main features. There are clues in the lede (that I placed there) that LN was controversial and enigmatic, and there is evidence in the article to back that up. Anyway, let's continue to assume good faith. Let's discuss the contentious points here rather than in the article or its revision history.(smjwalsh (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Lead guidlines

It might be helpful to review the principles for writing the lede: Wikipedia:Lead section. It certainly helped me.(smjwalsh (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC))

Reliable sources

I have several times referred to using reliable sources. Please note WP:PSTS, that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It goes on to say: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. ... Our policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources."(smjwalsh (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

Both Fallen Angel and Failed Angel are secondary sources, however it is still essential to test their own sources, which should be primary sources. Both of these use primary sources. One relies on documents, the other primarily on interviews. That is why both have been used. Likewise the views of LN and Stonehill and the members of People! etc are relevant on topics where they have first-hand knowledge or direct experience. Having said that, their claims or views are also subject to analysis, comparison with other sources. Eg if one was writing about a battle, the view of the soldiers of both sides would be relevant. However, each is definitely POV. Taken together all the POV accounts ought to give a better approximation of the situation (or it least as it was perceived). Anything LN says will always be POV as will anything said by those in the Fallen Angel or Failed Angle sites. Hence they should not edit this article directly (or through intermediaries) due to conflicts of interest. Let them make their claims and allow the WP editors to summarise and synthesise.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).

playwright?

You realize that the only sources for Larry being a playwright are him, right? Interviews he gave that stated he wrote them and they were picked-up or optioned. Are there any reviews of the musicals? There should really be some sort of evidence other than Larry's memory for the phrase in the lede and the entire section in the middle of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, and while there are claims that LN has a penchant for revisionism, I am satisfied that the sources so far identified corroborate aspects of what is included in the WP article. The persons mentioned by LN are real people, whose roles in similar projects are corroborated. There are external references to some of the musicals. WP guidelines allow biographical materials to come from the subjects of the articles unless the material is unduly self-serving. In fact, common sense suggests that the best source for information about a person is the person him (or her) self. It is probable that those musicals staged may only have been at the community theatre level in LA, but that does not invalidate his claims. Certainly some of the songs in the claimed musicals have been recorded and released. Anyway, if I find anything I will certainly include it.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

I could state that I did things with real people. The criteria for reason, and certainly Wikipedia, is not plausibility, but verifiability. Do these other people know who Larry is? Do they have any recollection of working with him? Certainly, there should be some source, other than Larry, to state that these musicals were staged. Where is the cast? Who was in the crew? Does anyone have reviews? The entire section should be removed until third-party sources can be found and all mention of Larry as a playwright should be stricken from the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

More?

"In 1999, Larry responded directly to this claim, pointing out that he had handed the album to Word in 1976 whilst still happily married, and that he and Pamela went on tour together in 1977. Larry further highlighted that simply checking with Capitol, BMI or the Library of Congress would have revealed that he had written "Feeling So Bad" in 1969, before he had even met Pamela, and that "I Feel Like Dying" was written in the same year as the album was recorded, which was five years before the divorce. He then went on to explain how the songs chronicled "Pilgrim's" journey into faith.[264] However the 2003 liner notes indicate that the album was recorded in in 1977.[265] The original cover also seems to back the 1977 claim."

So in 1999 Larry states he handed the finished album to Word in 1976 and was touring in 1977. In 1981 and 2003, he says he recorded it in 1997. Which is it? Can Larry be trusted as a source? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does LN say he recorded it in 1997 (sic)? I think you made an innocent mistake. Perhaps LN likewise made such mistakes on occasion.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

I suspect that now that the discrepancy has been aired, the Failed Angle web site will be updated, just as with the birth certificate. If that happens, all citations made via it are suspect as well and should be removed from all articles on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional source: http://www.meetjesushere.com/SNUTS.htm

First question - I'm not sure what the 1981 source you refer to is, but where in the 2003 liner notes does it say that the album was recorded in 1977? I've just read through the booklet three times and can't see anything other than two implications that it was recorded in 1976. ("They didn't release it until five years later, in 1981"). The 1993 CD booklet has the same 1976 implication. I agree that in the SNUTS lyric book it says 1977. So in at least one place he says 1977, and in several places he says or implies 1976. What might this mean? That it was recorded in both years, say in December - January? That it was recorded in 1976, but the released mixes were mastered in 1977? That he came up with the overall concept and rough demos in 1976, and recorded the final versions in 1977? That Larry simply made a mistake? Or that he is attempting to rewrite history? I'd suggest that the latter is a bit of a stretch in this case. It is well documented that he was on tour in mid-late 1977, which would suggest that if it was recorded in 1977 then it was earlier in the year. I don't think the cover having "1977" on it means anything. It could be the year it was recorded sure. But it could be the year he expected it to be released, which would make sense if it was recorded in (mid-late) 1976. It could also just be the year the photo was taken - it probably wasn't the originally planned cover in any case. (I believe the Dylan mock up photo of Larry and Pamela in front of the fake fireplace was the originally planned cover).

But it was Larry who wrote he handed it off to Word in 1976, when it was handed-off in 1977. I heard that the Dylan-esque image was to be the cover as well.

So perhaps this backs up LN's claim of interference by Word? However, is interesting that LN did not replace the cover when the album was re-released?(smjwalsh (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

"But it was Larry who wrote he handed it off to Word in 1976, when it was handed-off in 1977" - How do you know it was handed off in 1977? All I've seen is one source which says it was recorded in 1977, one which says 1976 (and passed to Word the same year), and several which only imply that it was recorded and handed over in 1976. Have I missed a source which indicates the handover being in 1977? (Other than by implication of the lyric booklet saying it was recorded in 1977 I mean). Whokilledduncan (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"However, is interesting that LN did not replace the cover when the album was re-released?" - Why would he replace it? Maybe you mean why didn't he revert to the originally planned cover? Because that showed him and Pamela together, and they were divorced by the time the album came out, never mind by the time it was re-released. Or am I missing the meaning of your question? Whokilledduncan (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing sinister was meant by my observation about the cover. I was thinking out loud. I have seen nothing in my research that suggested the cover is anything other than what it now is. I take your point about the 1981 release date and a change in his marital situation probably explaining any changes to which photo was used on the cover. LN still used the Dylan replication photo on the inner sleeve, so was not trying to edit Pamela out of his life. I noticed he sent greetings to sarah in the linear notes (or was it the songbook).(smjwalsh (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Apologies if my wording came across badly. I was just wondering why you "thought" he might have changed the cover, and whether you had any sources to suggest so. I didn't think you were inferring anything, sinister or otherwise. Anyway, perhaps to clarify, the cover originally was going to feature the photo of Larry and Pamela. He says so in the same e-mail response to DDS. I'm sure he said somewhere else, though I can't remember where, that he changed the cover to the one we know because he felt it would be incongruous to depict an apparently happy marital scene, when in fact they were divorced by the time. I think you are correct that the photo remaining on the inner sleeve indicates that he was not writing Pamela out of his life. Also, I think the clues were left on the inner sleeve to help the 'album cycle detectives' work out the meaning of the album. Oh, and yes, he did namecheck (a) Sarah in the liner notes. Whokilledduncan (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No offence perceived by me at all. I have no knowledge of an album cover change for SNUTS, although in his 13 April 1999 post LN wrote: "on SNUTS the album on which the cover was to feature her and I sitting together" implies the original intention was to have the Bring it Back Home replica (featuring PN and LN). If I find more explicit confirmation I will include, but would not rhallenge an insertion based on the e-mail evidence.(smjwalsh (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

Second - Why would Allen even think of changing Larry's public e-mail response for a discrepancy of one year where he is talking about stuff from over twenty years previously? Walter, the only reason the birth certificate scan was updated was to satisfy you and your expressed doubts. All he did was show a larger portion of the same document. He didn't amend it or show an entirely different document. What is suspect about that? Someone (yourself) highlighted a possible shortfall in his displayed evidence, so he displayed a bit more of the same evidence to "plug the gap". I don't understand why that is a big deal? Whokilledduncan (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my concern. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your concern? Sorry, but I'm still not following. You pointed out that the scanned document didn't indicate what type of certificate it was. ie that the top was cropped off. So the exact same document was rescanned to show that it was indeed a birth certificate. Why would that cause the least concern? Whokilledduncan (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing further, I in no way believe that SNUtS is autobiographical. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe that? Because LN said so (which I doubt), or because someone told you so, or your "gut feeling"? If you are correct in your belief, does that not validate LN and undermine DDS on this particular matter?

And so Smjwalsh just deletes the contradiction. I am very upset about this. You people have got to stop removing information that is critical of Larry, particularly when he offers it himself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter, If you look carefully you will see that I did no such thing. All you wrote is still in the article - in some cases in a footnote, where the claim and counterclaim are both presented. In fact, at the beginning of this section on this talk page, you correctly included the relevant section. So what was deleted that causes you to be upset? LN claims the album was recorded in 1976 and submitted then, you cite the evidences that it was in 1977. So I included the claim by LN, and then the apparent contradiction. Like whokilledduncan, I can see the difference, but can't see the significance of it for you. It's a minor point at best. I'm not sure why any of this upsets you. Why are you so personally invested in these matters? It is not NPOV to continually asset something is a lie. It is best to stick to the facts, present claim and counter-claim accurately and succinctly, and let readers draw their own conclusions, rather than assume all discrepancies are deliberate untruths.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

Also, what information critical of LN has been removed by "you people"? (smjwalsh (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

I did look carefully. You deleted the fact that Larry contradicted himself by first indicating the album was recorded in 1977 and then that he handed it off to Myrrh in 1976. Keep lying for Larry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said previously, "All you wrote is still in the article - in some cases in a footnote..." Footnote 257 reads: "However the liner notes of the 2003 CD release indicate that the album was recorded in 1977, and the original cover also seems to back the 1977 claim. See [1]." It's all there. I understand that if you missed reading the footnote text that you might think your contribution was discounted and that only one side of the situation was presented. I can understand then your reaction. However, personal attacks don't usually help advance the discussion. It is apparent that you are still upset. Keep in mind, I included DDS's original claim re SNUTS being autobiographical (and put LN's affirmation that it was not in a footnote). I hope you can look through my more than 1,100 edits and see that I strive to be NPOV and balanced. I have had corrections by both you and whokilledducan, and sought to incorporate them wherever possible. I hope this addresses your concerns.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

[ SECTION OF ARTICLE DELETED from here}

Now if you'll look carefully. Nowehere in there does it say 1977. Nowhere. Please look carefully. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Only for the sake of space, I removed lengthy section from article. I will stipulate that deleted section does not say 1977 anywhere. However, as I said previously, "All you wrote is still in the article - in some cases in a footnote..." Footnote 257 reads: "However the liner notes of the 2003 CD release indicate that the album was recorded in 1977, and the original cover also seems to back the 1977 claim. See [2]." It's all there. I hope this addresses your concerns.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

You are now complicit in Larry's lies and deception. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

PS: This article is now just one extended advertisement for Larry's revisionist history and I'm tired of it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way. I believe you made some valuable contributions to the process, but maybe you will feel better if you take a rest from it for a while.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

Um, the footnotes now say "However the liner notes of the 2003 CD release indicate that the album was recorded in 1977, and the original cover also seems to back the 1977 claim." Could you please advise exactly where in any of the CD booklets it says that the album was recorded in 1977. I cannot find anything in any of the three CD booklets which says that. As stated earlier, I don't see how the "1977" on the front cover indicates anything really. It could mean that it was recorded in that year. Or that it was expected to be released in that year. Or that the photo was taken in that year. Or.........? Whokilledduncan (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I believe that SNUTS was recorded in 1976 (as article says), and that 1977 was projected/anticipated release date. I took walter's edits as good faith edits and sought to include them. I will check the sources, and revise accordingly.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

Again to clarify, my focus isn't really whether the album was recorded in 1976 or 1977. Larry did undeniably say both years at different times, so I feel it is quite acceptable to record that conflict. My point is more that I would like either confirmation that the 2003 liner notes do in fact say 1977 (because I can't find such text in any SNUTS liner notes), or for the article text (about the 2003 booklet) to be reworded or removed, assuming we can concur that the booklet doesn't say 1977 at all. Whokilledduncan (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have my CD of SNUTS handy so cannot verify it myself, however am willing to accept whatever anyone who has actually seen the liner notes says. I'm sure there are other statements backed by sources that are inaccessible to everyone. I would love to have access to LN's Blue Book, as I'm sure it would be a good source of LN's perspective.(smjwalsh (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)).

Wikipedia's article size guidelines

I strongly suggest that editors read Wikipedia's guidelines on article size - which states that articles should only exceed 32 kb in exceptional circumstances. This article is already well over 300 kb and this will be a major problem for many readers. Therefore please implement the guidelines as soon as possible. Below is the link for the article size guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean Up Tags

Further to my edit comments removing the clean up tags, please identify the specific improvements that should be made here.If I knew exactly what you wanted done, I would have done it already.
1. Article length. Please read above discussion. There are plans in hand to address the article length. To avoid duplication of work, I find it necessary to enlarge main article before reduction, and then separation. The WP guidelines indicate there is no urgency in doing this.
Current readable prose is 137kb, so about 40% over recommended upper limit. See below:

   * Prose size (text only): 137 kB (23375 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 156 kB

Splitting into separate sub-articles will address this matter soon.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Have started the lengthy process of creating sub-articles, shifting material, and then reducing to summary statements on main articles. Have created The Musicals of Larry Norman, and One Way Records. Will created Phydeaux Records. Have shifted material to People! article, as well as various album pages: Street Level, Bootleg, Upon This Rock, etc. Will shift much from the Demise of Solid Rocks section. (smjwalsh (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

2. Length of introduction. A reading of the WP guidelines indicates that the current length is appropriate.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
3. Contributions by advocacy group. Please elaborate specifically.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
4. One-sided. Please indicate specific examples of unbalanced coverage. The primary reason that there are so many references is because of the controversial nature of some claims, the comments of some editors, etc. If you disagree with anything specific, identify it, we can discuss it and deal with it consensually. Just because you do not agree with a claim, does not mean it should not be included. I have been conscientious in identifying claims as claims (there are 28 uses of the word "claims or its variants in the article), and providing alternate perspectives as they are available. Use of the subjects own words is neither against guidelines nor inappropriate.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
5. Consolidation of references. Definitely needs to be done. So go ahead and do it. It definitely is not my area of expertise. (smjwalsh (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Will comment shortly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Will wait patiently. I know it takes a lot more to create than to just critique.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

The subject doesn't need sub-articles, it needs to be reduced in size and the majority left to a fan web-site. You also need reduce the number of edits. The database is now taking too long to load the page because of the dozens of edits you're making in a single day. Addressing your points one-at-a-time.

With all due respect, of course the article needs sub-articles. I've always seen the need for that. I was not aware there was a limit on the number of edits one can make in any one day. I don't experience any undue delays in loading the page on my 5 year old computer. (smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

1. Length. It's too long. The length of prose is not the point, the Larry article is longer than many other musicians who are far more important that Larry. Combine this with {{fancruft}} and you can understand. There is material in the article that is not of encyclopedic importance mostly the detailed information on his relationships, personal life, and extensive quotes that are unnecessary.

Readable prose is the only quantifiable criteria that WP addresses and even then its only a guideline. Comparison with other articles is irrelevant, but look above for discussion re Dylan, Lennon etc. Details about personal life, relationships etc are standard features of all biographies. In the absence of a biography of LN, IMHO they serve an important purpose. Certainly some quotes can be reduced.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

1. The introduction is too long for similar reasons. I would argue that the introduction should be the article since it covers all of the important information about Mr. Norman.

However, WP insists on an introduction with certain specific guidelines that the current introduction addresses. Your particular prejudice against LN is apparent. If we were to apply the same criteria to (say) Randy Stonehill, how short would his article be? So your point (if I understand it) is not that the introduction is too long, its that the rest of the article should be deleted. I can't see that happening any time soon.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

1. The advocacy group is The Failed Angle web site. They are advocates for Mr. Norman. The site was created as an apologetic against the claims of the Fallen Angel documentary. The material is almost entirely from primary sources, many of which were written after-the-fact.

Be specific. What "quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group" are in this article? As I collected and collated the quotes myself, I know I am not recycling a press release or similar (which is the intent of this particular guideline). For discussion re Failed Angle, please read relevant section earlier on this talk page. Consensus is that it should be included. (smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

1. One-sided because they material is all from Larry's side. In the few instances where I tried to add contrary information it was initially removed and then it was edited to mean things that neutered the criticism. I permitted this in respect of POV, however the vast majority of text is from Larry's documented revisionist-history point-of-view.

Of course it is not ALL from Larry's side. The article is written in a definite NPOV perspective. As regards revisionist history, that is your opinion. I respectfully disagree, but choose to allow the material to speak for itself. Again. List specifically areas that are POV and I will address them or remove them. I have removed material identified by Whokilledduncan and others who have written to me.

1. Consolidating the references should be done before any other edits are performed.

So you say. So go ahead. The article is not mine. BE BOLD. Have at it. Otherwise you will just have to wait until I get to it. If certain editors did not challenge everything as revisionist, it would not be necessary to document almost every clause.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

I have discussed some of these issues before. The key is that there is a lot of {{fancruft}}. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I was not aware of the term "fancruft", I researched it. The relevant essay indicates: "Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. ... use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil. As you are the only person who seems to have a problem with this article, why bother with it? I have received very positive feedback to date.

# In summary, your assertions are very general. You make allegations. They reflect your POV, but they are just opinions. Listing specific examples of each of the areas of your concern would be helpful and constructive. When you do, I will diligently work through them as they warrant. I realise it may take you some time to do it, but if the issue is really important to you, you will make the effort. I encourage you to read the next section on this talk page which insists upon specificity in this matter.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

In actual summary, this entire article is in favour of Larry's POV and needs to be reduced in length and POV. I will not take any time because as I have explained all of the edits on this article make it a long load. Fix the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your opinion so succinctly. If you are not committed to improving the article by being specific in your criticisms, then there is nothing further that I can do than continue to work to shape the article as best I can. If it is too onerous for you to read the entire article, then perhaps you can just read the introduction as you suggest. However, as it seems you already know all you need to know about LN then it might be better to read some of the other 3.2 million articles in WP. I'm here to create an encyclopedia and have created about 40 articles and worked on dozens of others, and are not interested in arguing about Larry Norman or anything else.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

I'm with Walter Görlitz. It is not a case of dividing it up, it needs extremely radical pruning.

I think its probably a case of both/and. I'm attempting to do some pruning at present.

To put this in perspective, ignoring the semantics of "readable prose size", according to Special:LongPages the entry currently stands at 358K, the 5th largest Wiki article. The next longest biography - Adolf Hitler is 226K, the 63rd largest article, whereas Jesus only merits 138K, the 762nd longest article. On 24 May, you agreed the article needed pruning, and compared it to Bob Dylan (142K & 656th). Since then, far from pruning it, you have just continued to expand it, with increasingly obscure references, trivia and over-long quotations.

Guilty as charged as far as expanding. However, today I have reduced it about 4% and I have created relevant sub-articles, and started transfering material that properly belongs under relevant albums, etc to those articles. I will endeavour to do as has been suggested, and realise that it may be taken out of my hands. C'est la vie!(smjwalsh (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

As you know, I explained how to consolidate references (which should also make your editing easier), but other than consolidating the example I cited, you have not done this. You subsequently stated "Consolidation of references. Definitely needs to be done. So go ahead and do it. It definitely is not my area of expertise." but as you successfully consolidated the one example I pointed out to you, you know that no "expertise" is required, whereas, as the person generating the multiple references, you should do the consolidatng.

While I'm sure I have the capability, I certainly have not mastered the procedure. I agree that it is probably my responsibility. I see the references issue as subsidiary to the prose length issue at this time. I will try to get to it, but I confess less enthusiasm for this than the creative process.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

Assuming good faith, you presumably want people to read the article, whereas, currently, I cannot imagine anyone wading through it - the contents alone are enough to put people off. You have obviously spent an unbelievable amount of time and effort on the article, but if you do not reduce it in length, others will, and probably not as carefully as you would like.
Having read a few sections at random, I suspect an article 1/4 the length could easily contain the "encyclopedic" content, and it may well need to be condensed further still.
Arjayay (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We all have different interests and tastes. For those who are interested in the subject, it may not be too long or detailed. For those who just want to know who LN is, I'm sure they will only read the introduction. But again, I take your point. Certainly, of the 5 cleanup tags, the one others are most likely to agree to is article length. Do you have an opinion on the other issues?(smjwalsh (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).

Over Tagging

A reading of the relevant WP guidelines WP:TAGGING confirms my initial reaction to the insertion of 5 tags on this article. The guidelines read: "Placing too many tags can be seen as "tag-bombing", disruptive, or as a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed, even on the worst articles."(smjwalsh (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

Further: "When adding a tag, keep in mind that other people who might be interested in fixing the problem (or who might dispute the tag) might not immediately see the same problems you do. Even if the problem seems obvious, it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. Some editors feel this should be mandatory and "drive-by" tagging should be prohibited. Other editors feel that some tags are self-explanatory. ... complaints left at a talkpage need to be actionable, so that editors can attempt to address them. It is not helpful to say simply "The article is biased." Instead, some details should be given to help other editors understand what needs to be fixed or discussed.(smjwalsh (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

The guidelines also indicate: "Any editor who sees a tag, but does not see any problem with the article, and who does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. It may be wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal. ... perhaps the person leaving the tag simply made a bad judgment call. If an argument on the talk page has been made as to the reason for the tag, but someone still feels that the tag is inappropriate, he or she should explain the reasoning on the talk page. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building. Adding and removing tags without discussion is not helpful, and can be seen as disruptive."(smjwalsh (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC))

Based on the above WP guidelines, after several days without further comment or specific substantiation, I have removed 2 of the 5 tags. Without agreeing with the reasons in the remaining three tags, I am willing to allow them to remain for now. I would encourage detailed, specific examples of each of the areas of concern.(smjwalsh (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)).

The three that remain particularly fancruft are acceptable to me as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasonable attitude and response. Let's work together to make the article something that is useful for those who never heard of Larry Norman, and also for those who value having a more complex look at a controversial person. I really want to be fair. I know there are those who see LN in very negative terms. Consequently, I am genuinely committed to presenting both sides of the case. Perhaps you could locate those sources that are negative but can be documented. I have genuinely included all such references I find. A look at the fancruft essay probably does not really apply as that is usually grounds for deletion as they are generally poorly sourced.(smjwalsh (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)).

If I may comment on the tags which still remain, essentially excessive length, excessive detail, and inaccurate/unbalanced -

Clearly the article is very long. However, I don't see why that should be of major concern. It's not like it's longer than any and all other wikipedia articles. In any case, it is very well broken up into manageable sections and well indexed. I think smjwalsh is right - that the introduction will suit casual readers, whilst those with a particular interest in Larry will appreciate the amount of information within the article. Those who are somewhere in between the two poles will surely read the introduction, and then use the index to find any sections in which they have a specific interest. In any case, smjwalsh has always maintained that he will in time consolidate and shift much of the detail to sub-articles, and I think it only fair to allow him the time he needs to do so. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's not longer than ALL other Wikipedia articles. In fact it is only the 12th longest article, out of 3.3 million English articles on Wikipedia (this is how I came across it, incidentally). The next longest article about a person, at #45, is Adolf Hitler. Make of that what you will. Stuffisthings (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping by this talk page. It's good to have visitors. You are correct that it is currently the longest biography on WP. However there are some things to consider:

• As yet there a very few "spin off" sub-articles. Look at the article on Hitler that you mentioned. No one is arguing that Larry Norman is more important than Hitler, although most would concede that he is better (although there are some editors who might even challenge that). The Hitler article is 695kb in length, with a readable prose (the key WP size parameter) of 142kb, or 23,400 words. The Larry Norman article is 646kb in length, but with a readable prose of 121 kb (or 15% less than AH) or 20,670 words (or 10% less than AH). THE AH article has 22 sub-articles that siphon off its prose, whereas currently there are only 5 sub-articles. More are planned to reduce the size of this main article.
• If you look at the list of longest articles. After Hitler, some of the very longest are: E.H. Carr and Mircea Eliade, both of whom were unknown to me. Both are comparable in readable prose length to Larry Norman: Carr (17,686 words) and Eliade (19,146 words). On both pages there is an extensive discussion about article length, with the consensus of active editors being to create sub-articles where possible without being unduly concerned about article length. See, for example, [3] and sections: "The second longest biography of Wikipeda", "Split this article, please!" and "About it being a long page". If you or other editors would like to assist by creating sub-articles, that would be wonderful.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Apologies for missing the article length discussion above. What I was getting at, in an extremely roundabout way, is that that the "undue" tag is probably justified. Keeping in mind Wikipedians' endless fascination with Fascism, Communism, and comparisons between the two (a battle in which tens of millions of words have already been ruthlessly slaughtered) it is at least somewhat understandable that topics and people related to these subjects have overlong articles. As for Eliade, much of the article is taken up elucidating his philosophies, information which should be rolled into the pages covering these philosophies, if it is indeed notable in that context. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I can't imagine much of the material here standing on its own in seperate articles. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but 20,000 words is longer than my Master's dissertation, and twice as long as, for instance, a recent New Yorker profile of Paul Krugman [4] which was widely mocked for being so incredibly long. (Go give it a read. I'll wait.) I know Christian music is very popular, but I think this is a clear example of undue influence.

I consider myself fairly unbiased with regards to the subject (aside from my belief that the article is far too long) but unfortunately a side-effect of the article's length is that it would take me HOURS to even read it, and DAYS to sort through the 775 (!) citations. I'm afraid it will take someone with a history on this article to make the drastic cuts necessary.

Anyway, I hate to drop by just to insult an article, so allow me to offer at least one constructive suggestion: I'm sure that each of the albums (or perhaps thematic groups of albums?) could be pretty easily spun off into its own article, which alone would probably shave a good 25-30% off the length. It would then be easier to trim out many of the trivial anecdotes and streamline the prose to bring it down to a more appropriate length and readability (ironically, I am now quite curious about the man who warrants a 20,000 word Wikipedia page, but I honestly can't be bothered to read through it!). I would also suggest removing the POV words "enigmatic," "iconoclastic," and "idiosyncratic" from the lede. The first 3 sentences of Bob Dylan are actually a nice example of an NPOV intro for an important musical figure about whom many people have strong opinions. Stuffisthings (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree also that the article contains a lot of intricate detail. Again, I'm not sure that this is really a major issue personally, but I do see the point / criticism. The sub-articles which smjwalsh plans to create will surely help to alleviate this. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The tag that I am somewhat confused by is with regard to inaccuracy and imbalance. Between us we have spent months now removing and correcting inaccuracies, and smjwalsh in particular has been careful to detail conflicting claims where he finds them. That said, I don't see any particular imbalance. I'm sure there are still inaccuracies within the article. Most of those I have found and highlighted have been quite minor. But if anyone sees any we haven't spotted yet, it would be useful if they would specifically identify them. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed "unbalanced" tag

As it is now 4 weeks since I requested specific examples of unbalanced or inaccurate content, and in the absence of such supporting evidence, and based on the comments of WKD, and the non-comments of other drop by editors as regards this tag, I have removed the "unbalanced" tag. For me, this is not the end of the matter as I am more than willing to correct any inaccuracies and add verifiable sources to provide balance. Of course, editors themselves can also BE BOLD and do so themselves. I do not propose to remove the other two tags at this time.smjwalsh (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, I see you have reinstated the "unbalanced" tag without any discussion on this page. If you re-read the above discussion you will see requests from both WKD and myself for specific instances of imbalance or inaccuracy. Despite these requests, you seem either unable or unwilling to be specific about these matters. I get it that you don't like Larry Norman. While you believe the article is positive toward LN, it may just be that this is a conclusion drawn from the accumulation of verifiable facts rather than a NPOV perspective. There are negative comments regarding him in the article that are verifiable (that is the claims being made), and no verifiable claim has been excluded or deleted (at least by me). If you have identified specific areas of inaccuracy or imbalance, then I have missed them. If so, I apologise. It should thus be easy for you to locate them and list them below for me and other editors to address. I genuinely want the article to be accurate and representative of all verifiable positions.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Look above and you'll see all the complaints I've had. It's pretty obvious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are these the comments to which you refer? Have I missed any?:

• "The advocacy group is The Failed Angle web site. They are advocates for Mr. Norman. The site was created as an apologetic against the claims of the Fallen Angel documentary. The material is almost entirely from primary sources, many of which were written after-the-fact". To which, I responded: "Be specific. What "quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group" are in this article? As I collected and collated the quotes myself, I know I am not recycling a press release or similar (which is the intent of this particular guideline). For discussion re Failed Angle, please read relevant section earlier on this talk page. Consensus is that it should be included. (smjwalsh (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)).
• "One-sided because they material is all from Larry's side. In the few instances where I tried to add contrary information it was initially removed and then it was edited to mean things that neutered the criticism. I permitted this in respect of POV, however the vast majority of text is from Larry's documented revisionist-history point-of-view". To which I rsponded: "Of course it is not ALL from Larry's side. The article is written in a definite NPOV perspective. As regards revisionist history, that is your opinion. I respectfully disagree, but choose to allow the material to speak for itself. Again. List specifically areas that are POV and I will address them or remove them. I have removed material identified by Whokilledduncan and others who have written to me".

smjwalsh (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 21 references (out of 755 in the article currently) to the Failed Angle website. Of these, they contribute the following:

• Date of LN's graduation
• Confirmation of Charles Norman's birth - previously sourced from ancestry.com
• E-mail from Harper re LN's attendance in 1960s at Covenant church
• 1999 LN post re Bible Study in his apartment
• Accusation that LN was a suppressive person
• statement that LN was audited by Scientologists. Confirming claim by ex-People! members
• 1968 Letter to his father re Scientology
• Album cover for People!'s I Love You
• Letter of Geoff Levin to LN
• Letter of Stonehill to LN
• 1999 Post of LN in response to DDS
• 1999 Post of LN in response to DDS
• 1998 Letter LN to Stonehill admitting LN was wrong
• 1971 cartoon confirming Pamela Norman was a stewardess
• Non-controversial details re Pamela Norman's background
• Claim re Pam's drug background
• Balanced by denial
• description of LN's whirlwind romance
• date of LN's marriage to Sarah Finch
• description of purpose of Failed Angle site
• Self-description of FA site author, as close friend of LN

Almost all of these quotes or references to FA, are non-controversial. In the areas of possible disagreement, they are either responses to claims re LN (thus balancing the article to a NPOV position) or if claims, balanced by those of LN's critics eg DDS or his film "Failed Angel". If I have mis-stated anything above, or omitted anything, I am open to correction.smjwalsh (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited any of the "facts" of this article for months so please don't blame me. I have felt that any time I attempted to edit anything it was reworded to mean something other than what I wrote as well and I know that was done by smjwalsh. I tried to balance the sections on Larry's relationship with Randy Stonehill but smjwalsh added material from Larry's own archives, much of which was written years after the events. They all fail the Primary Source guidelines, but I left them in. There are interviews given by Larry that were not fact-checked, most notably to CrossRhythms. There are a myriad of other sources that quote Larry years after events happened. While not classic primary sources, the way they're used, they're primary sources. Many of the bulleted items are the fan cruft which are in question.

I stopped trying to keep-up with this article months ago when smjwalsh started making multiple minute edits one after another so the end result was difficult to follow. Perhaps if I had a lot of time I would read through the article and itemize the problems but since I don't have the time, I suggest that you leave the warnings until either I have the time or the requested review is actually initiated. The other option is if you want to read this article without Larry Norman fan-glasses on and see what a non-fan would like to know about Larry and what only a Phan would want to read about. Think about someone who attended a concert of his or bought In Another Land and just heard about Larry's death. In one paragraph or less, explain how he got in rock music and about how he left People and started being a Jesus music pioneer. Explain how he ended-up in England, then came back and started a record label and probably another on how it failed. His marriages could be summed-up in a paragraph each. Talk briefly about his tours. Probably the most compelling information is about his medical conditions starting with his heart attacks since the whole "bulkhead dropped on my head" thing is universally panned by his critics. Talk about his final concerts. His funeral was such a wonderful event that it must be mentioned. That's an article on Larry. The rest is fan cruft. It would be ideal for a series of blogs or posts to the Larry Norman discussion group, but not a general encyclopedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that an anonymous editor (from Ottawa, apparently) removed the unbalanced tag a few hours ago and Walter restored it. There are now 3 editors who believe the article is not unbalanced, with one maintaining it is unbalanced. Walter acknowledges above that he stopped trying to keep up with the article months ago, so perhaps his opinion is out of date on the article. One example, there is little about his relationship with Stonehill in the article now. It is in a separate article. Further, in relation to their relationship, there are extensive quotations from both Stonehill and Norman, as well as others that present both sides of the argument. Stonehill even has the last word. I see that Walter is too busy to do anything at this time. I accept that in good faith, but reject the recommendation that the accusation of bias should be left to unspecified time. WP is not subject to the personal schedule or convenience of individual editors. Therefore, I will remove the unbalanced tag as suggested by 2 other editors. When Walter gets the time, he can always reinstate the tag after he has specifically detailed areas still requiring contrary opinions.(smjwalsh (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

Please check the other edit the anon made in the day. The fact is simple: no edits have been made to balance the inappropriately heavily weighted material from Larry's own annals to indicate the article is balanced since I placed the tag. It is impossible to remove the tag without removing all of Larry's self-aggrandizing delusion. The only bias in this article is Larry's own (and that from those who have been duped into believing it). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I did check the other edit on the Petra article. I see that you removed it even though it was sourced and offered an alternative perspective. Should I now put an "unbalanced" tag on the Petra page? Or are only positive comments allowed there? Likewise with the anonymous editor's comments in removing the tag on the LN page. He/she considered the article: "seems balanced now; but still seems unwieldy as an article, so leaving the other advisories intact) ", so it was not a mindless act of vandalism. In fact, the anon editor supports your contention re length. Even if one was to discount that editor's edits because you don't like them, there are still 2 editors who say the article is not unbalanced. smjwalsh (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Walter, if I read your comments correctly: You have no time to read the article through to remove biased comments, and that the only way to remove the bias is to remove Larry's comments that you disagree with. Perhaps a better way is for you to locate sources that question LN's claims. For example, you could include that CCM expose "The Liar Larry Norman" which did for Norman what they did for Mike Warnke. Of course you can't because despite the accusations etc over the years, there are few sources that criticize LN with documentation. Pretty much whatever verifiable criticisms that are out there are in the article already - revisionism, exaggeration, hype, delusional etc. As regards Larry's health, for example, we have Larry's claims re airplabe accident, the fact that it was a decade later the claims were made publicly, the confirmation by Mangano that there was an incident, but his belief it was not all that serious. We have the claimed effects on LN by LN, and others who worked with him. We have Wittenberg Door putting the question that he was not telling the truth, and Ln"s response. What is missing from the reportage? Likewise with his coronary incidents. The health claims need to be included. Both fans and foes see them as significant (for different reasons) - fans to explain his erratic behaviour or quality of work or delay in releases, foes as they document the reasons they don't trust him. I could omit them altogether but to do so would be to "white wash" LN, or to participate in the LN conspiracy. Likewise with the break up of Solid Rock. There are the accusations of Stonehill & Taylor, the mea culpa of LN re his business abilities, pointing a Mangano, plus the claims from Fallen Angel, and subsequent interviews by DDS in the Oc Weekly, Rimmer, Cody etc. Seems balanced to me. Your position is that LN is a liar. You have stated it several times. One cannot say that without being POV, so how does one suggest that in the article: 1. LN's claims are documented. 2. Someone contradicts him. 3. Include relevant documentation. Readers can then make up their own mind. Walter, why don't you scan through the article and pick out the 3 most outrageous claims LN made and then list them on this page. We can then discuss them. Then, once they are resolved, we can move onto others. Shouldn't take you too long as the article supposedly is full of Larry's lies.smjwalsh (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fix the article. It's biased and you know it. It needs to be completely re-written without any lies from Mr. Norman. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I sincerely believe the article is as balanced as the available sources allow. Let me also assure you that I'm not a propagandist. I research carefully and extensively and strive to accurately present the research findings as the 30-40 other WP articles I have created and hhundreds of other articles I have edited attest. I am genuinely open to any verifiable "corrective information" or perspective that can be included. In another forum I have read a list of Larry's claims that you doubt eg One Way sign, Vineyard, Dylan, airplane bulkhead, and have included these same claims and doubts in the article from verifiable sources. You put great store in Powell's Encyclopedia. It is, of course, unsourced and if copied verbatim in Wikipedia would be attacked as being unverifiable. Yet, I allowed Powell's quotation about LN's revisionism to stand - not necesarily because I think it is true (or otherwise) but because it is representative of a prevalent (although not necessarily prevailing) opinion. Finally, as WP is a collaborative effort, I believe the article would benefit from you sharing the "heavy lifting" - finding the sources that support your opinions about LN, discussing them. It is good that you have been keen to revert or challenge some edits included. It helps to keep the process (and hopefully the product) honest. The article is not perfect, but still better than previously. With sufficient co-operation and time, it can o be (nor as I would prefer) but that's OK with me. It is proleptic in nature - already but not yet. I have not forgotten the length and trivia concerns, and will address them "in the fullness of time" and/or allow others to do so. smjwalsh (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the subject himself. Larry had a propensity to invent the truth to suit his desired world-view of himself. So when you are writing about such an individual, using sources created by such a person, all you are doing is reinforcing his twisted world-view. The article is not perfect because the sources are flawed. When editors, particularly those in Europe and the U.K., simply reproduced what Larry said without fact-checking it reinforced that twisted world-view. CCM Magazine for all its shortcomings fact-checked and printed rebuttals. Harvest Rock Syndicate similarly. I would love to see Cornerstone's Jon Trott do a piece on Larry as well but I think that may be asking too much. Too many Larry sources. An insufficient number of balanced sources. This article will therefore never be fixed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Extraordinary length

At 330kb+, with 777 citations and a word count running into the tens of thousands, Larry Norman is currently Wikipedia's longest biography by a considerable margin, dwarfing Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill and George Washington. It is Wikipedia's thirteenth-largest article of any kind, and would be even larger if e.g. Musicals of Larry Norman and Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill were folded back into it. To a certain extent Wikipedia would be improved by making the aforementioned historical biographies longer rather than making Larry Norman smaller, and Norman is essentially a harmless topic. But the enormous detail is a barrier to comprehension - everything is notable - and the spin-off articles just highlight the unnecessary size of the body text. Relationship of etc in particular could be shortened to a few sentences; as it stands, it's not much shorter than all of Dylan Thomas by itself. Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the article with the fancruft template so essentially I agree that the article is too long and has too much detail for the general visitor to the site. I am at a loss as to how to reduce its size. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just split it into edible chunks and summarize here? . I agree that the main article should be succinct, but so long as the content is verified by reliable sources and relevant to the sub-topic, I see no compelling reason why splits and summaries cannot be employed. If you don't like the detail, read the summary; we're not running out of space and can accommodate both types of readers. Skomorokh 13:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I don't want to get involved in a discussion, other than to render a prima facie opinion and go. I am only doing this because RfC is super-backlogged, and I am trying to help out.)

Make Career section into main article Career of Larry Norman, leaving behind an intro sentence or two as a summary, and a short blurb (chronologically) about each of the subsections currently within Career section. That would cut the article in half. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Norman was immensely influential especially before the revolution of albums into CDs and the launching of Christian rock. He was truly a pioneer. I agree that extra long articles aren't great but the suggestion to simply remove details doesn't seem smart. I like Anna's take where spin off articles are created and summarized here. In that way you have the best of the best saved for the overview and those who wish can dig deeper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxtian (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

The issue isn't that "Some have described", he was a delusional, spun stories, and had a penchant for revisionist history, and worse. So by sandwiching the phrase between two glowing sections it makes it seem as though they were minor flaws. The don't describe him as such they insist and have proof to back their claims. The original text must be returned or at the very least, the qualifiers must be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here. "Some have described" is factually accurate. The alternatives would be "All have described" or "No one has described", which are not factually correct. Is your objection the term "some" or the word "described"? Would use of the word "insist" rather than describe be acceptable?--64.121.41.204 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have watched the change/revert cycle for the last few days with interest. Personally I am comfortable with either of the contested versions. As I understand Walter's position, LN was delusional, etc. For him it is a proven fact. Of course, it is no such thing. What is factual is that there are many, including the three sources in the lede, claim Norman was delusional, spun stories, etc. Powell, one of the sources, makes the claim in his Encyclopedia (which is not footnoted or encumbered with any of the usual scholarly aparatus). In fact, if Powell's article was a WP article, it would be flagged as needing re4ferences. Be that as it may, it is a legitimate source, the comment about LN is there, and as such can be included. The other two sources rely upon the opinion of David Di Sabatino, and are the products of interviews with him. Irrespectively, these are legitimte opinions, and are valid to include, as they balance other claims in the article. I agree with Walter that verifiable single source claims are legitimate (with the caveat that the minority position be a significant minority cf. flat earth theorists etc) As the anonymous editor asserts, he/she is merely trying to rewrite what is already there. If that is the case, and I believe that it is, I see no reason to change the original sentence (even while personally disagreeing with the opinions stated). The sentence as it was clearly indicates it is only what some describe/believe, thus allowing readers to assess the strength of the claim for themselves. There is much more in the article that could be discussed than parsing this particular sentence.smjwalsh (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it's in the lede is key to me as well. If it were buried more deeply in the article, it would have been less important. To address anon, it's not a matter of "some", "all", or "none", it's the fact that you feel the need to use the term to minimize the effect of the statement. Three sources imply "some". Then you also, in the guise of "transition", throw a glowing light on the closing section: "while others credit". Just drop the phrases and restore the order so the lede lets people know that Larry was a flawed individual rather than, oh, he had flaws but look at all the good he's done. Most followers of Larry don't know the negative about his life because they only read what Larry had to say about himself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these clarifications. I agree that the information is documented, however poor the source material, and have no objection to them remaining in the article (although I clearly disagree with Walter Gorlitz's assertion that these are established facts). If the qualifier of "some' is objectionable, I can live without it remaining in place, as long as it is clear that they are not in any way established facts; however, ending the paragraph in the manner that the previous version did is objectionable, as it creates the impression that is is a summary of the contentions of the entire paragraph.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They are WP:V and that is all that Wikipedia requires. Your phrases are WP:Weasel Words and must be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I disagree with your characterization (and attempt to inflame with continued use of that term), I have already agreed in my previous post to not using the word "some" so that the conversation can move forward. I also think that you should read the post that you have linked to, as it your use of the term does not mean what you think it does.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the section listed as Unsupported attributions where the first phrase that falls into this category is some people say. Isn't that almost exactly what is currently listed in the article? "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint." --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the whole section. It is cautioning against using those phrases as a way to include information without using adequate attribution. In other words, if a section simply said "Some people say that Walter Gorlitz is delusional" without appropriate citations, that would be using weasel words. If you say the same thing and offer appropriate citations, not weasel words because the attributions are supported. The inclusion of the sources allows the reader the opportunity to asses the source for themselves, where excluding the citations would deny the reader that opportunity.

Your incorrect use of information (both in this instance and your improper use of the term vandalism earlier) is serving only as an attempt to divert the conversation, and is not helping this discussion to move forward. Let's get back on topic.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attribution of motives. I am not trying to divert the conversation. I have always maintained that you are attempting to subvert the impact of Larry's well-documented flaws by couching them in terms that are not appropriate and then then bury it between two positive sections. What is your motive behind that? You're willing to drop the weasel words but not willing to return to the original order. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Walter, you are the one who made a big deal over the use of the word "some", even though its use was clearly appropriate according to even the information you have cited (and despite your insistence on using terms incorrectly). Because you repeatedly made an issue of that word, I conceded its use in an attempt to move the conversation forward. Instead of taking that olive branch, you have chosen instead to continue to harp on that word - to what end I have no idea.

And I have already articulated my reasons for not having that sentence as the last of the opening paragraph. There are those who have stated their opinion that he behaved in the manners described; others believe differently. That he was "delusional" is not a fact, despite your assertions to the contrary (unless you have a citation referencing a valid medical/psychiatric report/diagnosis that was completed on LN). So by all means include the statement about those opinions, but having it as the final line of the opening paragraph gives it a disproportionate place of prominence.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's there to stand against all of the glowing lies Larry invented about his life that are also WP:V. The only thing I will not move on is its place in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally cutting to the chase. We could have avoided a lot of needless discussion on the contrived arguments you raised previously had you just come clean about it earlier.

That it's placement is there simply to highlight your POV is a significant part of the problem. My recommendation would be that the line referencing the opinions about LN's "delusions", etc. be made its own sentence, and then end the paragraph with something more neutral.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What would have avoided a lot of needless discussion is if you hadn't made assumptions about facts and left the lede alone. It's not my POV it's fact. What I perceive your POV to be is that Larry was flawless and it has until now remained unstated. There is no way of to make Larry's flaws more neutral without neutering the point which is your intention. Almost the entire lede is pro-Larry and the end of it should add balance to his lies, many of which are countered in Fallen Angel and other books, but as this article will hopefully become smaller and more balanced over the next year I'd like to keep the lede balanced, which is nearly impossible since all of the other sources start and end with Larry. So until then I'll sing "I've been shot down" and just acknowledge that you don't understand who Larry really was and refuse to read information that contradict your own opinion. So I understand that you're willing to remove your newly-added ameliorating qualifiers bu refuse to restore the original sentence order, is that correct? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea how you are inferring that very extreme POV from changing a single sentence, but your strident statements painting everything so clearly black and white do aid in further highlighting your POV, and the dangers of letting someone with such extreme animosity have so much control over an article. I will restate: My recommendation would be that the line referencing the opinions about LN's "delusions", etc. be made its own sentence (written in a manner that makes it clear that they are opinions, and not fact as you keep insisting), and then end the paragraph with something more neutral.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm black and white in a grey world. Larry's issues are not opinions. Sorry you can't get that straight. Perhaps if you understood that you would see why there's no way of attaining the neutrality you seek. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been working on this article extensively for three months and have read and re-read it many times. I never interpreted the negative ending of the contested sentence to be the conclusion of an argument, but rather similar to St Paul's use of "men" and "de" in his writing (similar to "on the one hand", and "on the other hand", an even-handed approach). The current disputed sentence has been discussed previously, and seemed a good consensus. The lede is overwhelmingly positive about Larry Norman, so while these negative assertions may be troubling to fans, it is important that it is known that there are those with negative opinions of him. Also, it should remain in the lede because due to the length of the article (mea culpa), casual readers may only read the lede. I believe the amount of time spent discussing this issue really could have been better spent improving the article. smjwalsh (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Further, in reviewing the edits that precipitated the current discussion, it is clearly apoparent that there was no vandalism involved, no malicious editing. I think we need to remember the assumption of good faith. Also, if one is "black and white in a grey world", I can understand why the complexities of Larry Norman's behaviour would be uncomfortable. Having said that, a binary gnostic mindset would be well suited for technical articles but less helpful for biographies. I believe the WP project is strengthened by the contributions and accountability of diverse personalities and philosophies. However, it is imperative that editors contribute irenically and avoid personal attacks. smjwalsh (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fully culpable on incorrectly marking the edits as vandalism. Should have used one of the other buttons available to me in Wikipedia:Twinkle, it's just the largest. I really need to control the urge to hit that button first. Not trying to make personal attacks or ad hominem attacks on anon. Hope I haven't made any of either category. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm sure it's easy to do. smjwalsh (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"The issue isn't that "Some have described", he was a delusional, spun stories, and had a penchant for revisionist history, and worse. So by sandwiching the phrase between two glowing sections it makes it seem as though they were minor flaws." What we need to do is attempt to accurately refelct what the Reliable sources have said about this issue and present their views back in the article in the appropriate propotions. WP:UNDUE. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to quantify the prevalence of the LN is delusional view. On the scale of None, Few, Some, Many, Most, or All, my best guess is that "Some" would be minimally correct. However, the original "others" is most factual. It indicates there is a divergent opinion, without attempting to define exactly the relative weight of that position. Again, I am personally comfortable with either "Others" or "Some" as the verifiable sources used support either.smjwalsh (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with part of smjwalsh's statement. It's not how truthful or non-delusional subject was, it's how many Christian music experts think he's is or isn't. Using "others" simply shows there is opposition while "some" attempts to quantify. Without actually doing any actual research on the subject we can't say if it's a few, some, several, many, most, or all. We do know it's not none. That's what makes "some" a weasel word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Using "others" would also be a weasel word, then, as the citation for the use of the term "delusional" simply indicates the Fallen Angel film. To be more helpful to the reader, the sentence should state who specifically in the film uses the term. Most readers will not have access to the film, nor should they be required to watch a film simply to find out who it is that calls LN delusional. So use that same citation, but if you are going to object to the use of "some" on the grounds that it hinders the reader from evaluating the source (the proper definition of a weasel word), then the same is clearly true for the use of the word "others". You cannot logically object to one and not the other. Name the claimant(s) and cite the source in the sentence.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The word "others" is used to frame all of the WP:V critics not just the one: "delusional, possessing a 'propensity for spinning stories', and a 'penchant for revisionist history'". And the Fallen Angel film is a collection of people's opinions. You can therefore logically object to "some" and not "others". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For example, who in the Fallen Angel film called LN "delusional"? I saw the film and cannot remember. As a reader of this article, one of my first questions would be "Who said this?", but am only provided with a citation that offers me no details.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a different discussion, however I didn't supply the reference. It would be good to know where (or at least who) in the documentary stated that about Larry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is necessary to determine the details of that quote (hey, look at that - agreement!). The other two sources are easy to access; one is a website, and the other is a book that can be searched on Amazon - the page number is even provided in the details of the edit page, if I recall. But the other one ("delusional") provides no way for the reader to assess the source of the attribution. Almost weaselly, if you will. :) --64.121.41.204 (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't provide the references for this quotation either. However, it is almost certainly one of the Levin brothers from People!, who uses the term to describe Larry's version of the break-up of People! This is referenced in the WP People! article (if not the LN article). smjwalsh (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I suspected, the original reference was by some former People! bandmates. The specific reference is in the body of the article, and is also refered to by Allen Flemming on the People! page on his Failed Angle site (also referenced).smjwalsh (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. In taking a look at the original context, then, I am not certain that it is accurate to leave the information in that sentence as-is. Levin never said that Norman was "delusional" (indicating an overall state of mind or mental status) but simply that his "take" on the circumstances leading up to the breakup of People! was. The sentence needs to either make the clear or be eliminated.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct re the Levin reference. It is one thing to say a person is delusional, and another to to indicate he was delusional on a certain matter. How do you suggest it be rewritten?smjwalsh (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is my recommendation: "Norman has also been described as having a 'propensity for spinning stories', and a 'penchant for revisionist history'". Now that I have seen the context of the "delusional" quote, I don't believe it has a place in the lede.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also an issue with the quote from the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. As currently written, the sentence only includes the first part of the quote. The complete quote says: "penchant for revisionist history, which is always entertaining if nothing else". If it is to remain, the full sentence needs to be included.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the entire quotation is necessary, as the abridged version does not change the intent of the original quotation.smjwalsh (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that. I have kept the quote as it was in my recommendation above.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussion we have had thus far, it seems that we have arrived at the following: 1) Opinion on the sentence containing the information on LN’s “penchant for revisionist history” remaining at the end of the first paragraph was split. Given that, I think preference should be given to the original placement. 2) Re: the statement about Norman being delusional, the consensus is that the citation provided does not support the assertion. The quote from Levin is about LN’s “take” on a specific incident that happened 40 years before Norman’s death, rather than his overall state of mind or mental status. Additionally WP:Label requires caution when using negative labels such as this, stating they “are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject.”

Based on my understanding of where consensus currently sits, my recommendation is for the closing of the paragraph to read: He has been credited with having a significant influence on many artists, both secular and religious. Norman has also been described as possessing a "propensity for spinning stories", and a "penchant for revisionist history.” I will make those changes shortly.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like several people are working to fix the many issues here. For what it's worth the entire introduction is poorly written and that's a shame because he was a fascinating person and he had a profound impact on many musicians and performers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxtian (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As you believe the introduction is poorly written, why don't you suggest a better one? Either submit another version on this page for discussion or edit in such a way as to improve it. Before you do so, take the time to read the guidelines about writing the introduction (lede) for an article. There are certain guidelines that must be followed. I'm definitely not trying to "rain on your parade", but if you see "many issues", please identify them and these can be ameliorated.smjwalsh (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Article is far too long

Although I don't have a strong personal interest in either Larry Norman or this article, I can't help noticing, however, that the article has become far too long. Its length is actually quite ridiculous in my opinion. While I appreciate that his life was somewhat more complex and contentious than the average person's, the amount of information is way too much. I am not going to get involved in any major editing, but can I request that those who have a particular interest in the article do something to radically reduce it. One possible solution is to have a separate article devoted to his recording career. To include so much information on this as well as all the information on his complicated personal history is simply too much information for one article. Thanks. Afterwriting (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Having just read your talk page, I can guess what caused you to land upon this page. I take your point (a point made to me on some other articles upon which I have worked). While there are no upper limits on WP these days, the length is comparable to the one on Bob Dylan. One of the complicating factors is the sheer number of footnotes and supporting material required as almost anything written about Norman is often challenged due to the polarities of opinions about him. However, I recognise the need to keep articles at a manageable length. My modus operandus is to research extensively, write fulsomely, edit vigorously, and then create spin off articles as necessary, but above all to write truthfully. While this results in a temporary bloated situation, I request sufficient time to take care of this. Definite spin off articles would be:

1. Relationship with Randy Stonehill

2. Contributions

3. Relationship with CCM

Norman's involvement with People! can certainly be reduced now that I have worked on improving the People! article. Once the other sub-articles are created, I can then assess whether there is a need to create separate sub-articles for various phases of his career. (smjwalsh (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for replying. My moderate interest in Larry Norman actually has no connection to the issues on my talk page. That is just coincidental. I would greatly encourage you and other editors to heavily reduce the main article. Most readers would not be too interested in all the detail. Many / most more significant artists have much smaller articles. Unfortunately some articles attract too much attention from only one or two editors who want to include too much unecessary information. My own approach is to say more by saying less. A number of "spin off" articles would be a considerable help for those who only want to read the essential information instead of a mini book. Afterwriting (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A pdf version of this article is 50 pages, of which 18 (36%) are notes and other source material, leaving 31 pages of content. In comparison, Dylan is 31 pages, but only 9 pages of notes, leaving 20 pages of content. I realise there are other people (who are more important?) with less material, but they are often treated in full-length biographies, or have extensive online websites or other materials. Norman has no biography as yet, making the need to assemble hard to find information more critical (IMHO). Again, I see what you are saying, and given sufficient time will shape the article into a more manageable size. I believe the article is much better (albeit bigger) than a month ago. I appreciate your patience.(smjwalsh (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

A look at articles on Paul MacCartney, Mick Jagger and John Lennon was helpful to how to achieve your requested reduction (Or redistribution).(smjwalsh (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC))

SMJ - You'd improve the article length and readability by consolidating the references - for example, currently (see timestamp at end) 446, 447, 448, 449 and 450 are all the same. Your slight variation in 450 is covered in the article, so doesn't need re-explaining in the notes. To have 5 references, all to the same article, in a row, makes the article more difficult to read, without adding "value". This repetition also makes it look as if the notes are padding out the article, 2 or 3 could be removed with minimal risk of the dreaded "citation needed" note.
(I also know nothing of Larry Norman, I only came here because of the mis-spellings of "rhythm")
Arjayay (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have made the requested change. Sometimes I put in sources because material/sentences get moved around. There seems to be a way to consolidate references also, which would reduce article length considerably.(smjwalsh (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC))

Congratulations you made it to the Top 5 Longest Pages in En-wiki, quite an achievement ;) --80.10.46.77 (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's length was already far too long when I made my original comments about this above - but now it is just getting constantly worse by the day and is now way beyond ridiculous. Please start culling the article as soon as possible and stop adding to it - there's already nearly 900 references! Afterwriting (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your concerns. I am near to the conclusion of adding before I attempt the task of dividing, reducing, and then consolidating references. I have a plan and am working it to the best of my ability at this time. I have carefully read the article size guidelines (again), and am comforted by the following: "No need for haste. Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB overall. There is no need for haste, and the readable prose size should be considered separately from references and other overhead. ... Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". I have explained why there needs to be substantial referencing (because of strong polarisation of opinion, rumours, speculation and unfounded assertions) (Read the talk page and see the tone and tenor of some editors). User:Arjayay had made a useful suggestion about consolidation of references. I have not mastered this process yet, and have been waiting until the article solidifies, as changing/deleting affects the source notes. Your concerns are no doubt legitimate, but probably only theoretical for you. Very few people actually watch this article (39). Anyway, please know I hear you, agree about the need, and will definitely comply as best I can.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)).

Believing actions speak louder than words, I have reduced the article immediately by 12% by creating Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill. I have identified several other sections that can likewise be "spun off" into separate articles.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)).

One of the key criteria in appropriate article length is the amount of "readable prose". I have just completed a content analysis of the page as it is right now (before any more separations, deletions or consolidations), and am advised of the following results: "* File size: 646 kB

   * Prose size (including all HTML code): 204 kB
   * References (including all HTML code): 340 kB
   * Wiki text: 309 kB
   * Prose size (text only): 118 kB (20148 words) "readable prose size"
   * References (text only): 134 kB

According to the guidelines, "Readable prose size: ... > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided". As the readable prose is 20% above this level currently, I will strive to comply. I trust this puts the size issue into proper perspective for now.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)).

You're missing the point entirely. There is no need for spin-off articles. There is no need to have an article on Larry's musicals because they were likely staged in church basements and ran once or twice. There is no need to have a spin-off article on the relationship between Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill as it's just not that important. Why do you need to use an article to say what can be said in a paragraph? Why do some things need a paragraph when they can be explained in a sentence? The article has too many intricate details that belong only on a fan web site and not in an encyclopedia. This article is nearly as long as the entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music, but that work is a specific on the genre. I expect it to be long. Drop all the fan cruft and you'll have an article of reasonable length. Remove duplication of references and you'll save even more. Drop all the crowing about what things Larry claims he did and include only those things that are verified by third-parties and you'll actually have an article of reasonable length. It's not about creating sub-articles at all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that Larry Norman was only of interest to a relatively small group of fans, and of absolutely no interest to anyone else. As a consequence, the only people who read, care about, and edit the page are the fans, in this case one incredibly misguided fan. The article is so long because the great mass of editors who pare down other articles are completely uninterested in the subject, because he isn't of general interest. Eventually User:Smjwalsh will give up or leave or get bored, and after a few years the article will find its natural size. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Walk into any Christian music festival today and ask for the attendees who know who Larry Norman is to raise their hand and you'll get a smattering. I suspect more know who Keith Green is. Unfortunately, Larry just isn't that important. However I don't agree with the comments on Smjwalsh. I think that there isn't the ability to self-edit to determine what is and what isn't important. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. The difference is that if you walked into a Christian music festival and asked if people knew who Larry Norman was, the only people raising their hands would probably be on stage. (Norman is a little like Velvet Underground in that regard.) I do think it's telling that this page has two long sections on how the article is too long :)

Please allow me to summarize Larry Norman's life: 1) came to fame as a musician during the countercultural movement. 2) recognized as influencing two subgenres of rock music, alternative rock and Christian rock. 3) Obligatory "in popular culture" section. Nobody needs to know who his third spouse's dog was or some musician he stayed in a hotel room with once. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takemybooksaway (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is the 11th longest article on Wikipedia, and the longest article about an individual person. It is almost 70% of the size of Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush put together. Why is this article so long, what is so special about Larry Norman? JIP | Talk 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The length of this article has been discussed frequently during the past three months or so. Rather than rehearse the arguments, may I suggest you read all of the comments above, as well as those further down this page. See also section"Clean Up Tags" in Archive 2. Sufficient to say, length is not an indicator of importance. Be aware that both Hitler and GW Bush have many more words written about them on Wikipedia than Larry Norman through the various sub-articles about various aspects of their life and career. As there is no maximum article size on WP, and the only criteria seems to be readable prose (that is, ignoring footnotes etc), article is only about 20% larger than 100k readable prose. In fact, there are several other biographies larger than Larry Norman by that criteria. As to what's special about Larry Norman, a reading of the introduction may in part answer that question.smjwalsh (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Two Issues

First, I originally modeled this article on the Pixies article, and emphasized Norman's role in pop culture. That's because Larry Norman is an "underground" figure. It is disingenuous to compare Norman to Bob Dylan, because Larry was not as prolific. "Bob Dylan" is a household name, while Norman is famous/notorious only in underground circles...alternative rock and the hippie Jesus Movement of the sixties.

It seems that both Dylan and Norman were prolific, both in the number of songs written and also recorded. However, the comparison between the two would not be in impact on popular culture, or in name recognition, but rather in their influence on the respective genres associated with them. Certainly Norman is not a mainstream artist, but is obviously well-known within the Christian rock genre, and by those artists associated with that genre.smjwalsh (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC):

Second, in my opinion it's also disingenuous to classify Norman as a "Christian musician." There was no Christian music industry during the height of his career...this is putting the horse before the cart. Norman clearly influenced the Christian music industry, but this is like saying that Velvet Underground was a grunge rock band. His musical style was clearly "rock music," the period that Wikipedia places after "rock and roll." Somebody might call David Bowie "the godfather of punk" because he influenced it, but you wouldn't see him placed in the same category as The Clash. In my opinion, Norman falls under the same exception as U2...while they have written gospel rock songs on most of their albums, they have always been more associated with the community of rock artists rather than the community of "Christian artists." The same is true of Norman...he may have collaborated with Christian artists in the 80s but in his later years he was more associated with artists like Frank Black and Modest Mouse.(talk) 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• LN is certainly a Christian musician in that he was both Christian and a musician. The wikilinks are separate in the opening description. He self-identified as a Christian, and certainly was a musician as his primary occupation/vocation.
• I agree about there being no Christian music industry when Norman started, however I do not see where this is relevant. Nobody claims he started the industry per se, however there are many verifiable sources indicating he was considered the father/godfather/pioneer of Christian rock. Your opinion is valid but would need verifiable sources to balance the claims included in the article. The primary thrust of the article (and certainly much of his career) was as an independent artist. Your contributions are still in the article (in the influences section if I recall correctly), but his collaboaratiojn and influence on Frank Black, the Pixies, Mighty Mouse, might be more recent, but reasonably minor in comparison with the majority of his career, and certainly as regards his notability.smjwalsh (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Norman was either a Christian or a musician. Here's a better example of what I'm talking about: Bono is a Christian. Bob Marley was a Rastafarian, Bob Dylan is some sort of Messianic Jew, and Matisyahu is, I think, a Hasidic Jew. All of them have at some point in their careers written songs that were exclusively about their faith. Yet Bpno is not called a "Christian musician," nor Matisyahu a "Jewish musician." When someone is said to be part of "Christian Music," the writer means "Contemporary Christian Music," the genre that Amy Grant is part of, that is centered in Nashville, Tennessee and whose music is sold in Christian bookstores, etc.. What I'm trying to say is that Larry Norman preceded Contemporary Christian Music (although he influenced it...but so did Bach for that matter), his music was never sold in the same markets and he almost always played the west coast. The designation of "Christian music" therefore is incorrect, but I apologize for using the word "disingenuous" earlier, it isn't what I meant and I intended no offense.

No offence taken by me. What the article says, and what Walter & I are both saying is that LN was a Christian + a musician. I can see why you are talking about "Christian musician" as an analogue of CCM, but it does not say so. In fact, further in the lede it indicates that LN was not even part of the Jesus People Revolution, and much later in the article (probably in the section where you contributed a long time ago) it discusses his relationship to the Church and CCM. I think we all agree: LN was a Christian, was a musician, and was not part of the CCM industry. More importantly, the aryicle reflects that consensus.smjwalsh (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of problem is that Norman is remembered in two very different versions of history. Larry Norman had 15 minutes of fame as the poster boy of the "Jesus movement," and was remembered in two different ways afterwards. The people who created contemporary christian music were fans of his, and they wrote him into their history. (The analogy I used earlier kind of fits: Bowie is the punk rock as Norman is to CCM.) However, he is also remembered as not being accepted by Christians hardly at all, as the kind of person that the Pixies frontman wanted to be like, and somebody the staff of the Simpsons Comics knew, who was in the sequel to The Blob...a countercultural figure.(takemybooksaway 20 June 2010 (UTC))

I don't know why you inserted your response here. It takes away from the flow, but just a few things, Bono is considered to be a Christian musician. Should what those outside of the faith do with those inside of it be of any concern to those inside the faith? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the phrasing of your question, perhaps you can explain. This article shouldn't be about any philosophy on "the faith," we should just stick to history that's verifiable from third parties. However, how to genrify (I think I just invented that word) Larry Norman isn't the most pressing issue at the moment. It's the fact that the Larry Norman article is about 70% longer than the one on Jesus Christ. And by the way, Bono's not considered a Christian artist, because he does not make Contemporary Christian Music, but I'm not going to beat a dead horse.

And to clarify, Bono is considered a Christian artist because many (Harvest Rock Syndicate, Cornerstone Magazine, CCM, and other) in the Christian industry consider him to be both a Christian and an artist and by their definition that makes him a Christian artist. So take your stick and back away from both horses. This article isn't about any philosophy of faith but rather a recognition that the subject was a man of faith and that faith happened to be Christianity. He allowed his faith to reflect in everything from his sexual relationships, vis: "Pardon Me", through to his politics, vis: "Reader's Digest" and "The Great American Novel", and his view on that faith. Whether or not it affected those who don't share his faith is coincidental. The article is about the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point re article length (which is discussed ad nauseum above). Of course, the comparison with the WP article on Jesus is not exactly fair. The Jesus article has more than 2 dozen subsidiary articles that give extensive treatment to JC's birth, life, and various phases of his ministry, etc. Total WP words written on JC far exceed those devoted to LN (as it should be). Further, "Christian music" incorporates far more (and thus is not equivalent) to CCM, although I'm sure that there are many who would be oblivious of various other genres of Christian music. smjwalsh (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Norman helped create Christian rock and was the role model for many of the earliest acts. He was as mainstream as any other Christian musician at the time which was all somewhat underground. Even today the CCM industry is its own world with few crossovers. It was scandalous when Amy Grant tried to go pop. As for the category there might not be any better because he was an early Christian music rocker. One of the first with Maria Muldaur who also crossed over to mainstream musical genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxtian (talk • contribs) 14:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On the volume of Norman's work, I have to disagree that it was a high volume. If you take your song database and exclude all of the duplicate titles you have a very small number of songs recorded. Keaggy would out-strip him, as would less-prolific artists such as Stonehill, Amy, likely even Stryper. Larry "remixed" his songs and released slightly different versions. He would occasionally also re-record his songs or those under on label (Tom Howard and Terry Taylor's songs come to mind).

Based on the list of songs recorded by Larry Norman, there are at least 405 unique songs recorded by Larry Norman and released on his 100+ albums. Of course, a number of those were written by others. I believe Dylan wrote about 700 songs, but am relying on my memory. As to whether Randy Stonehill or Phil Keaggy recorded and released as many or more, I don't know. Of course, Larry is famous/infamous for alternative versions, re-mixes etc, so total output would exceed 1,000 recordings. I'm not sure how many would constitute prolific, but IMHO more than 400 would be considered prolific.smjwalsh (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A check search indicates Dylan released 458 songs. See [5] smjwalsh (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't alone in starting the modern Christian music industry either. Had he not been around, it would have started just the same. I don't think he was the role model for early acts. He may have been a role model though. People like Geoff Moore, TobyMac, Bob Hartman and many others have commented on how he sang real music that was well-produced. However I have heard interviews granting that role to Petra, Resurrection Band, and other bands as well. For me, Larry was just one of dozens of bands that encouraged me. Granted, many people call him the father, grandfather, and even the godfather of Christian rock.

I agree with Walter here. Larry may have been the primary (or one of them), or the best-known of the pioneers, in the same way that Elvis Presley was influential in the emergence of rock 'n' roll. There were doubtless others doing what he did, and someone would have done it if he didn't, but nonetheless, he made a worthwhile contribution.smjwalsh (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Along that line from Joseph Haydn: "He is often called the 'Father of the Symphony' and 'Father of the String Quartet' because of his important contributions to these genres.". Not the first, just made "important contributions". Perhaps we could lift the terminology here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And finally, Larry didn't cross-over, he was never part of the industry. He was initially trying to be mainstream, not an insider. I would argue that Solid Rock was a realization that there was a realization that there was a way to sell his music that didn't involve a mainstream label. If anything he did a reverse cross-over. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree here also. Obviously LN was part of the mainstream recording industry (Capitol, and MGM), and that for the rest of his career was essentially independent. John Thompson (and others) describe him as separational in his approach. See Apostles of Rock. He main no effort to crossover to either the mainstream or even the Christian mainstream (excluding perhaps his couple of years with Benson Records in the late 1980s).smjwalsh (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• An artist can be very influential without ever having a number one hit. I think he is most known for his impact on the industry itself, as you say if it wasn't him it would be someone else, but it was Norman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qxtian (talk • contribs) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Influence may not be reflected in sales or chart success. Dylan had no US #1 singles ever. Of course he had a significant number of top tens, and at least 5 albums that were #1. An artist can influence some people who in turn influence a large number. Some artists are infinitely more influential after their death than during their life.smjwalsh (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote Used in People! Section

In researching some of the quotes being previously discussed for the opening paragraph, I ended up taking a closer look at some of the paragraphs in the People! section, in particular this one:

"According to British writer Steve Turner, 'Larry, always uncompromising, saw this as a victory for big business over artistic vision and for secular pop over spiritual rock. From then on, he ploughed an often lonely furrow as a solo artist who tried to combine the thrill of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones with the spiritual insight of writers such as CS Lewis and GK Chesterton.' Norman has been described in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music as having a 'penchant for revisionist history, which is always entertaining if nothing else.' Some other members of People! state that at no time was there ever any talk of the album being called anything other than 'I Love You.' Geoff Levin, who apologised to Norman in 1996 for his treatment of Norman in the final months of Norman's relationship with the band, is quoted in the documentary Fallen Angel as stating that Norman's 'take on things' was delusional."

The bolded sentence sticks out like a sore thumb; it does not fit with any of the surrounding material, and sounds more like it was just shoved in there. In fact, the quote is actually referencing LN’s liner notes for In Another Land, not anything to do with the break-up of People!. The quote is already used, and appropriately so, in the opening paragraph. I think it should be removed from this section, as it really makes the sentence read awkwardly, and is not applied accurately here.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)