Talk:Larry Norman/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Merger proposal

I propose that two unneeded pieces of fancruft Early life and career of Larry Norman and Later life and career of Larry Norman be incorporated into this now cut-down article. It may have been bloated before, but it isn't now. (Notice: I don't know a thing about this guy, so please excuse me if those two articles should just be deleted instead.) Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

They too should be cut-back but some of the material can be merged in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
For those who never heard of him, I am going to try to give a one-paragraph explanation about who Norman was. I never had anything to do with him directly, but from working in Hollywood (audio engineering mostly) during those years the name is familiar to me. I just did a web search, and IMO the article at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/109-22.0.html nails it. The general feeling among Hollywood pros was that, in a sea of talentless hacks who would never make it outside of the ghetto of religious music, Norman had some real talent and choose to stay in Christian music even though he could have made more money in the mainstream. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As part of the cleanup of the Larry Norman page, I propose that the following pages me merged into the Larry Norman page and replaced with redirects:
Early life and career of Larry Norman
Later life and career of Larry Norman
Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill (Currently in AfD; no merge is allowed until AfD is resolved or withdrawn)
List of songs recorded by Larry Norman
Musicals of Larry Norman
One Way Records
Phydeaux Records
Solid Rock Records
Street Level Records

I am not at this time proposing merge of the following pages, which I believe to be notable enough to keep as stand-alone pages:
Larry Norman discography
People!
Bootleg (Larry Norman album)
Home at Last (Larry Norman album)
In Another Land (album)
Only Visiting This Planet
So Long Ago the Garden
Something New Under the Son
Stranded in Babylon
Street Level (album)
Tourniquet (album)
Upon This Rock (Larry Norman album)

The reasons I am proposing these mergers are as follows:

  • Duplication: "Larry Norman discography", "List of songs recorded by Larry Norman", and the discography section of the Larry Norman page cover the same subject, with the same scope.
  • Context: "Early life and career of Larry Norman", "Later life and career of Larry Norman", and "Relationship of Larry Norman and Randy Stonehill" need the context of the main Larry Norman page.
  • Notability: The vanity record labels do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for stand-alone pages, but they do meet the guidelines for a section on the Larry Norman page.
  • Bloat/Excess Detail/Fancruft: this constellation of pages taken together is many times larger than the Wikipedia presence of musicians with comparable notability such as Bobby Day and Norman Greenbaum or even far more notable musicians such as Eric Clapton and David Lee Roth.

Background: As noted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, The Larry Norman page was #1 on a humor website's list of The 6 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries, having peaked at 362,211 bytes. It has now been edited down to a more reasonable 37,723 bytes. Along the way to becoming so bloated, the Larry Norman page spun off a number of auxiliary pages with spillover bloat and a large amount of overlap. For example, the fact that Gary Burris played bass guitar for People! for a total of four hours in 1974 is an unnecessary detail that really does not add anything to the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The discography should probably be separate, particularly if references can be found. This is standard practice with musician articles. The fact that he was a prolific recording artist is not in doubt, which albums are most remarkable is all that should be presented here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I have removed it from the list of merge candidates. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
With the exception of the now-removed discography, does anyone object to any of these merges? The histories will still be there if you ever need to look at the pre-merge version. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really understand what is meant by these proposed "merges". Several months ago I cut this article down from ~250k to ~132k. It was still too big (I often have a hard time deleting information) and I have no issue with it being cut more drastically. I think the current version is smaller than it needs to be, though (less than 400 words in the "Career" section?) and I was planning to add some stuff back from the ~132k version, hopefully in a way that wouldn't draw objection. But it doesn't make sense to me that we would merge content to this article from these spin-off pages, because it was either a) included here as well, and was just deleted; or b) wasn't deemed essential enough to include in the ~132k or ~250k version of this article (or bigger/older versions). By any logic I can figure, we should be discussing simply redirects, not merges. Is that what is being discussed? Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses really strange, and in some cases stupid, naming.
Delete means that the page, talk page and history all go away. (An administrator can see the deleted pages but we can't.) That is not what we are talking about here.
Blank means to delete the content, leaving a blank page
Redirect is just creating the actual redirect, whether it is new or used to be an article.
Merge means to copy whatever is useful and usually end with either blanking the page or turn it into a redirect (depends on whether anyone is likely to search for or link to the page). The talk page remains as is. The article history remains intact. This of course means that you can copy whatever is useful just as easily after the merge as before. It also means that when what is in the article to be merged is totally useless, we can sort of pretend that somebody someday might copy some of it while editing the main article.
What we are proposing is to move some material back (possibly later) and to replace these articles with redirects, leaving the talk pages and histories intact.
BTW, I don't think anyone would have the slightest objection to you expanding the article with info from the merged ones. (I don't know your skill level, but if you don't know how to access an older version in the history, I will be glad to walk you through it). I really cut it to the bone and it certainly could be fleshed out a bit. The ironic thing is that the well-meaning editors who added too much detail (a rock opera that was never published, pretty much every place he ever performed) actually made it so that less people read the page. So please, go for it. Add stuff that is important and/or interesting. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know the difference between deleting, redirecting, etc. "Merging" doesn't mean to turn A into a redirect to B; it means to take info from A and insert it into B. What I was asking is whether we're actually discussing adding info from these other pages into this article, which doesn't seem to make sense because that info wasn't important enough to include in this article when this article was much bigger; or if what would actually happen is just redirecting (while preserving page history so that a merge could theoretically be done at a later time, if there were reason to do so).
The article does need to be bigger than it is, to allow the reader some basic understanding of Norman's career and why he was important. But I'm working on doing that by merging in info from the previous version of this article, not by merging in info from these other spin-off pages. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
No, the articles does not need to be bigger than it is. It is sufficiently large. I have had casual Larry Norman fans read the lede and say that's all the information required to achieve basic understanding of Norman's career and why he was important. It was previously too detailed, relied too heavily on primary sources and sources that did no fact checking. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I have already merged as much as I am going to merge. I had all of the pages open in tabs when I was trimming, and used them where appropriate. I wouldn't mind seeing a modest increase -- maybe 10% or 20% bigger -- but I have no strong feelings one way or the other and am fine with whatever the consensus is. Then again, maybe I am not the best person to ask; I find the actual topic rather boring. I just saw a place where, in my opinion, someone had to (cue star trek joke) "WP:BOLDly trim where no man has trimmed before". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, FWIW, I did quite a lot of trimming before (and it was frankly in much worse shape, because besides being huge, a lot of it made no sense whatsoever and I spent half the time trying to figure out what it was trying to say before I could try to rewrite it more concisely). But I'm a woman, so... you might still be right. :) And, like you, I'm someone who just came across the article because it was huge; I've never heard of the guy outside of my work here, but I did find him a pretty interesting figure by the time I muddled through it.
Anyway, I've pretty much finished rewriting the Career section, which is the bulk of the work I'd like to do (and it's all I'm going to do today). It restores basic information but it still cuts out a lot from the previous incarnation (before you cut it down). While I know I don't own the article, and I'm certainly willing to discuss changes and potentially compromise on taking stuff back out, I find it hard to believe that anybody would look at the current version and think "Oh my God, this is so huge and excessive!" (For reference, the Career section was about 6,500 words before you worked on it, and it's about 1,400 words now. For a 40-year career.)
I actually do have some more detailed thoughts now about these spin-off pages:
* List of songs recorded by Larry Norman: This can't possibly be merged, and just redirecting it wouldn't make much sense. I think it should either be left alone or deleted (I don't really care which).
* Solid Rock Records, honestly, I'd probably vote to keep as its own article. To me it seems significant enough to warrant it.
* The others, I suppose I maintain my previously stated position to redirect without any intended merging of information. If that's what everybody else is advocating, and you want to call that a "merge", okay. Actual merging would inherently make the target article bigger by adding information from the merged articles to the target article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree that Solid Rock Records should stay. There is no need for the list of songs as none are notable except those not written by Norman and none are referenced. Since the majority of the albums Norman released weren't notable, it's a hard sell to hang-on to the songs as well. If any notable songs are on an album, they could be listed in the discography, but only if the Norman version was notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

*Disagree that it should stay. Keep & Merge as part of the Norman article - unless someone can find a single RS that discusses the impact of label? I couldn't. It seems to have been a vanity label for Norman. Currently, the company with that name books singers for backyard parties. EBY (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Strongly disagree with keeping Solid Rock Records as a separate article. Make it a sentence or paragraph in the LN article. Besides the obvious lack of notability outside of Norman, it has material in it that violates our WP:BLP polices (we do not mention "rumors" of extra-marital relationships involving non-notable and non-public LPs).

We do have to replace List of songs recorded by Larry Norman with a redirect, otherwise every link listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_songs_recorded_by_Larry_Norman will stop working. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The nature of the label as an entity apart from Norman precludes its move to this article. It affects and interacts multiple artist articles:
There were others who were signed to it and I'm certain that RSes can be found to support its existence, albeit pared-back substantially. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
In regard to Solid Rock, it appears there were several other notable artists signed to the label, and the list of sources includes several that appear independent of Norman (granted, I haven't scrutinized these sources). We don't seem to have a notability guideline specific to record labels, but it looks to me like it meets the general guideline. I suggest that it go to AFD. (I do agree it doesn't need to be so long and the BLP concern you raise is valid. I think at one point, there was a lot more text in at least one of these articles about the affair allegations.)
In regard to the list of songs... I had a paragraph written about why a redirect is both unnecessary and pretty illogical (because the redirect target won't have a list of songs, or any information about the songs that link to that article), but truthfully, and for no good reason, I'd probably prefer to redirect it and keep the page history, vs. just deleting it. So okay, I withdraw my objection to redirecting that one. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • About 'Solid Rock' - can you find any of these cites or RS for its notability or confirmation of the other artists being part of it? I went looking. The imprint is mentioned at AllMusic (here) with 2 other notable artists besides Norman/Stonehill - 1 artist is a dead link, the other doesn't actually attribute any releases TO 'Solid Rock' in his discography. Norman's Reuters obit mentions the label in passing, more to demonstrate Norman's independence (here). The best cite I could find was CCM(here), which states that Norman used Solid Rock as a venue for introducing other Christian acts with a list. The problem, again, is that those acts went on to establish themselves at other labels - I struggled to find any charted albums with the 'Solid Rock' label. My !vote, such as it is, remains that Solid Rock be part of Norman's article - it was clearly part of his work but it doesn't seem to have existed separately of Norman or been notable beyond Norman's driving force. It can certainly take a chapter, and other acts can redirect to it. This can be an evolution - the article could certainly re-grow to its own with more information. Does it matter much if its part of Norman's article or on its own article? Not technically - a search will still link to it. It just seems Solid Rock was much more a part of Norman's narrative than its own entity.EBY (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Two artists (Heard and Howard) are dead.
It was certainly Norman's major work and you cannot mention the label name without thinking about Norman, but it was an important label.
The article is clearly too long and should be edited hard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
It meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in an article (in this case Larry Norman), but not for its own article. See WP:NRVE and WP:COMPANY. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
You can't seriously be suggesting that the Solid Rock article is being used for advertising, which is what WP:COMPANY was about. I'm not sure why you think referring to WP:NRVE is significantly different from my referring to WP:N, the general guideline, which, as I said, I believe the topic meets. A search at Google Books comes up with several books that appear to have non-trivial coverage of the company. The media organization Cross Rhythms [1] has also clearly covered Solid Rock extensively.
Perhaps you were intending to refer to WP:N#Whether to create standalone pages, which seems far more relevant to your point. Although the label is obviously linked very closely to Norman, that doesn't preclude its having a separate article, and I continue to feel that a separate article is more appropriate because the label did release works by other artists (at minimum, Randy Stonehill, Mark Heard, Tom Howard, and Daniel Amos, as supported by various Google Books sources). Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy break

I am going to boldly suggest that the policy in question is "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." Though the artists mentioned may be notable, the question on point is - do RS say that the label, as a company, was notable on its own (not as a subset of Norman's work) for the albums it released or the development work it did? EBY (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that WP:COMPANY was redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Commercial organizations, and not to the top of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as that page's shortcut header indicated it did. This may have been the reason for my earlier confusion about why User:Guy Macon had referred to WP:COMPANY, when the redirect target didn't seem relevant. I've now edited that shortcut to point to the top of the guideline page. I'll reply to EBY's comment momentarily. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Your question doesn't seem to represent the policy you quoted. The policy prompts the question, "Do RS say that the label has been noticed by people outside the label?" I.e., if the only person writing about the label were Larry Norman, the label wouldn't be notable. To respond to the question you asked, I think it's at least as independent from Norman as a book tends to be from its author, or an album tends to be from its performer, or a painting tends to be from its creator. I don't think there's a burden to show that a company must exist fully independently of its founder, in order for the company to have an article. Also, I expect I am at or nearing my limit of discussing this here -- you're welcome to take the article to AFD for more input on whether it should exist as a separate article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't want to delete it. We want to merge it, and that discussion is happening right here. By my count the support is two for merge and two for keep. If no other editors weigh in, that's a keep -- no consensus for the merge. If debating this is stressful, simply don't respond. The outcome is unlikely to be different if you do. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, we don't want to merge it. Possibly two editors want it merged. The rest of us want it to remain in place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I !voted merge. This label feels like a Vanity label - for which there are no hard and fast rules about independent articles. US Records redirects to Usher, although it once represented Justin Beiber. Where is the narrative of this company best served in terms of classification? As part of the creative efforts of Norman or as a company with its own independent legacy? I haven't been able to find but the one article that mentioned the label by its own impact. I think we agree the information is valuable, it's just a matter of organization & placement. EBY (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Exactly two editors want it merged (EBY, Guy Macon) and exactly two editors want it kept (Theoldsparkle, Walter Görlitz). Like I said, that's a "keep - no consensus for merge" unless more editors weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, consensus - not majority. I'm pretty easy to sway but I haven't seen any cites, quotes, or backing information for the 'Keep' argument. EBY (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
One definition of insanity is that you continue to do the same thing expecting a different outcome. If you can't find any articles on this subject on-line, then stop looking for articles on-line, and start reading books instead. As I mentioned, there is at least one that discusses the label and its influence on the young CCM industry in terms of both artistry and possibilities. I have not had time to do the research but may find time on the weekend. I found http://books.google.ca/books?id=CJhaBvbmuOQC&q="Solid+Rock" which is one book I was thinking of. P. 51 is a good start. In fact, that first full paragraph succinctly summarizes what the article should discuss, along with a referenced discography of albums and artists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I think what you mean is that you haven't seen any cites, quotes, or backing information for what you would consider to be the only valid "keep" argument. I've posted plenty of support for my opinion, which is that the label article should be kept because it clearly meets the notability threshold, it released the work of several notable artists besides Norman, and its impact was significant as documented by independent reliable sources. You don't get to decide that consensus is in your favor because the other side hasn't convinced you to change your mind. I'm not expecting to change your mind, and if you would rather accept that you don't have consensus support than seek out other opinions (it would be perfectly fine to post it at AFD while recommending a redirect and not deletion) that's your prerogative. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

*If I may redirect your ad hominem: Guy Macon was stepping discussion towards resolution by putting a stake in the ground with a summary. Good. The stake seemed (at that moment) more concerned with the count than the arguments. Not good. Thus my comment that consensus is not majority. The discussion is following due process; it certainly looks as if the article will remain. What happens after that is tomorrow's headache. EBY (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed that everyone here has read and understood WP:CONSENSUS. I did not explicitly restate the basics of consensus because all four of the editors I named have presented reasonable arguments, and in such cases it absolutely does matter how many editors hold each position.
I advise leaving Theoldsparkle's more aggressive comments unanswered, on the theory that everyone reading them can already see them for what they are: a not-very-severe case of WP:BATTLEFIELD. The comments reek of a "my position is obviously right, those who disagree with me are obviously wrong, and something must be wrong with them if they dare to disagree with me" attitude. As such, the best response is silence. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not how I feel at all; that is similar to how I interpreted EBY's comment, "Also, consensus - not majority. I'm pretty easy to sway but I haven't seen any cites, quotes, or backing information for the 'Keep' argument" which I read as, "The consensus matters, not the majority, and since it would be easy for me to be convinced, and they haven't convinced me, that indicates their argument is not very valid and therefore there's a consensus for my own side." I apologize if I misinterpreted; I hope it's clear, if you understand how I read the comment, why I did respond with such vigor. I didn't say that if you disagreed with my argument, you must be wrong; I said that I had supported my argument, in response to EBY's implication that I had not.
I understand your position. I feel just strongly enough about my own opinion in this matter to maintain it and to make it clear that there is continued objection to your proposal. I have repeatedly encouraged you, if you wanted to pursue the merge/redirect, to take it to another forum for further opinions, and if you had done so and the decision was made there that the label didn't need a separate page, that would have been fine with me. If you're going to stop pursuing it, that's fine with me, too. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I am going to stop pursuing it. I don't feel strongly about it, and the keep arguments are reasonable, even if I was not convinced. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

OK, here is the list again and what it appears we have decided to do with them:

Consensus=Keep: No change needed

Consensus=Keep: No consensus to merge

Consensus=Merge: Replace with redirect, retain article and talk page history

Do Nothing for now: these require a different procedure

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

The article is fully protected against editing until 19 February, 2014, because of a complaint at WP:AN3#User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Startropic1 (Result: Protected). I've taken admin action under WP:BLP to remove the Recantations paragraph. It attributes statements to a living person, Pamela Newman, based only on a self-published source, http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com. Some of these statements by Newman could be re-added if they could be found in WP:Reliable sources. Note that a Facebook page has no value under our policy as a *third-party* source. Occasionally it may be used as a primary source of the views of the page owner. If you want to request any further changes during the period of protection, use the {{editprotect}} template. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Malicious Edit Removal/Fallen Angel film recantations

I added some info under the Fallen Angel secion, pertaining to the former "Failed Angle" website that has been changed to http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com and recent recantations by people interviewed for the film of the statements they made in the film. It seems to have been maliciously removed. I undid the removal. The user that removed my edit, Walter Gorlitz , claims that the source I cited "lies" with any proof of his malicious claim. The entire website I cited shows numerous notarized legal documents, audio/video recordings, etc. debunking claims made in the film, and is maintained by a biographer authorized by the Larry Norman Estate. This site is more reliable than Walter Gorlitz who fails to provide any sources or poof of his accusations whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Walter Gorlitz is associated with the nefarious and highly suspect director of the Fallen Angel film, Mr. David Di Sabatino. 71.168.245.210 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Startropic1

Nonsense. The material is poorly written and sourced even more poorly. See my full response here and they were all done based on Wikipedia editing guidelines. As for me being "associated" with Di Sabatino, I have spoken with him, but I've also spoken with Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, Mark Heard, Terry Taylor, the Gossett brothers (with whom I'm much more closely associated) and many others, but a conversation doesn't make an association. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I also added a longer response on the other talk page that Walter Gorlitz has already linked to, but here are the pertinent parts relating to the article itself: Some rebuttals:

  • You seem to suggest the director as a reliable source. While in fairness, he IS the director of the film, the information in question is material that he is hardly a primary source for. It has become clear that he tampered with some of the interviews and some of the people interviewed are suspect as well. Furthermore his body of work prior to the Larry Norman film, and his notoriety puts his credibility in serious doubt.
  • If you go to the previous URL, http://www.failedangle.com you are redirected to the new site that I added to the Wikipedia page. It is run by the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate, Allen Flemming. I have noted this several times but you don't seem to be able to grasp this. If you bothered looking through the site, you would find numerous recordings of Larry and Pamela along with transcripts, there are no sources more primary than that! See them here: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/shot-down/pam-newman/

Here are more sources:

Failed Angle facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Failed-Angle/114494451912560

Archived copy of the original Failed Angle page: http://archive.is/eAgqg

If the sources I have cited are insufficient, then all mention of the Fallen Angel film and the lies it suggests should be removed from the page as that film and its director are far less credible than the sources I have provided. Also for the record, I was the anon because I didn't immediately login until after the malicious edits began. Startropic1 (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if you're going to re-post your material here, so will I:

I'm glad this came up. I was just about to go to RSN, because even after a compromise edit I feel very uneasy about the page, but this forum should do. Let's look at the "source" being added. Here's one of the adds and here's the source: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/news/recantations. Some background: the website that this "source" is hosted on is an attack site levelled against a documentary film that brings-up some damning evidence against the subject of the article.
  1. First, the author of this "story" is Alan Coughlin. There's no other story on the site by this author and there's no indication that the author has any credibility. No other writing credits by the author. However there is someone who goes by that name who writes a blog: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/TheSubjectiveAspectOfTheGospel.jsp
  2. Second, there's no statement of editorial oversight or anything that would help this site to meet the standards set at WP:RS.
  3. Third, there's no support for this statements made by Newman. It would be good to know the circumstances of the interview. Some of the statements were made on the interviewee's Facebook page, but there isn't a link to it to confirm that this is the case.
  4. "David Di Sabatino told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie." We have an unnamed "friend" who made a claim. This already sounds unreliable. Could you imagine going to your editor and saying that? The truth is that this "claim" has been made by various fans of Norman's and have been refuted by the director. The back-and-forth happens in Larry Norman fan sites and discussion boards.
  5. The title of the page and the addition to the article claim that Newman "recanted". I don't see a recantation anywhere in the story. To recant, is "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong and that you no longer agree with them" I see "I ... decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I." I don't see her saying that her past statements on Norman were wrong. She does say that she is "sorry [she] even shared anything with [Di Sabatino]. He just twisted my words and left out the most important part". I'm not sure how Newmans words were twisted, and Newman does not go on to clarify how that was the case. There was clearly editing out of material.
The whole thing fails WP:NPOV and WP:RS and should be removed. If the material passes RS then keep it in. If the prose pass an third-party review, I'll agree, but the addition to the article is poorly written, biased, sourced by material that does not pass RS and is certainly below standards for Wikipedia.
As for ignoring posts Startropic1, the discussion made on the article's talk page wasn't made by Startropic1 but by the anon. I didn't see the discussion because they were added during my commute. (I must stop having a real life). The warning on my talk page fails WP:NPA as it clearly uses legal wording (?Cease & Desist Larry Norman Edit Removal Please), but that can be forgiven by a new editor. So, let's get some eyes on those recent additions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you think that I consider the director to be a RS. That's why I had his article deleted.
While Ian Flemming is the authorized biographer, that simply means he has a conflict of interest in discussing Mr. Norman.
I am not "a supporter" of Di Sabatino. I'm a supporter of FC Bayern Munich. I'm a supporter of Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I can understand how you have come to the conclusion that I'm supporter: because I don't toe the Norman family party line on Mr. Norman and remove unbalanced information on Wikipedia, but that's not the case. In fact, I was accused of being a fan in a recent Facebook event notification of the documentary by someone who really does hate Mr. Norman.
With that in mind, there are no lies in the documentary. There some very one-sided statements though. If there were lies, the Norman estate would have taken Di Sabatino to court. They haven't. And the sources you have added do not meet WP:RS and should be removed immediately.
Now, I will point you once again to WP:NPA and ask you to retract your statement that I am spreading lies about Mr. Norman ("can no longer defend himself against your lies"). You may use simple <s></s> tagging around the statement.
Lastly, even if I had reverted your material, I would not have violated 3RR, that only happens on the fourth revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Allen (not Ian btw) Flemming having a conflict of interest, this is incorrect. He has been given direct access to a mountain of legal documents & recordings left behind by Mr. Norman. Apparently Mr. Norman had the foresight to document a lot of pertinent information. Mr. Flemming previously stated that the biography he will be publishing will include Mr Norman's faults, which no one suggests that Larry Norman was a perfect saint. He has hardly been biased in what he has shared thus far. How are documents and recordings he shares on his site which are DIRECTLY from the Larry Norman Estate NOT valid sources?!

In regards to the assertion that the Norman family would have sued Di Sabatino if the film was full of lies. As a matter of fact, they DID sue him. Among other things Di Sabatino used Larry Norman's music without permission. In the end, the Normans decided to abandon the fight because they didn't want to bother wasting anymore of the Estate's limited funds, (Larry had significant medicals bills to get paid), on a film they believed "few people would even see." It is unfortunate that people associated with Di Sabatino litter sites like Youtube with clips of the film to futher propogate his lies. The truth can become a lie when it is intentionally removed from context as Di Sabatino most certainly did with the entirety of his film. Startropic1 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was fully aware of the lawsuit related to the use of Norman's music in the documentary on the subject. I was under the impression that Di Sabatino won that suit because under US law, the music was associated to the subject and therefore considered fair use. If they withdrew the suit, that's encouraging news.
The suit I was suggesting that the family make was related to factual accuracy. No such filing has or will be made.
Now, if you're finished maligning Di Sabatino, may we return to the source you added? It does not meet RS, does it? I listed four points as to how it doesn't and unless you can respond, I think the issue is closed on that front as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone else responded to one of my queries on the matter on my talk page and this raises an issue that needs to be cleared up. Let me first paste the response from my talk page: In answer to your question at Talk:Larry Norman: "How are documents and recordings he shares on his site which are DIRECTLY from the Larry Norman Estate NOT valid sources?!" Because they are not published by a WP:Reliable source, such as a newspaper, magazine or book. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Your logic fails, how can RECORDINGS be published in a newspaper, magazine, or book? Notarized documents, (such as the ones published on that site), are admissible in a court of law, how is this insufficient for Wikipedia?

Now, beyond this it seems that the website that I cited is being immediately dismissed as an invalid source without those disputing its reliability properly researching it. As I have mentioned time and again, everything published is by the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate, furthermore THIS statement can be backed up and cited via the official Larry Norman website by the Estate itself:

1. http://www.larrynorman.com The front page documents Allen Flemming as the authorized biographer: "THURSDAY, FEB 24, 2011- ON THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF LARRY NORMAN IN ANOTHER LAND Larry Norman biographer Allen Flemming has written a nice piece on the third anniversary of Larry's passing. You can read it here.

2. Articles posted on the official site by the biographer himself: http://www.larrynorman.com/see.html (scroll down to the 3rd anniversary and 2nd anniversary bits.)

Surely a source directly from the Larry Norman estate MUST be acceptable?? I do not understand how material from a biographer authorized by a FIRST party is an unreliable source. Technically, as being authorized by the Larry Norman Estate, I believe the source I originally cited is a SECOND party source, NOT third party.

On this note I should point out that in certain places another website, http://www.larry-norman.net and/or other websites related Larry Norman ending in .net or .co.uk are being cited as official Larry Norman sites when they are not.


I will again reiterate that if my edit is deemed via unreliable source, then all other material pertaining to the Fallen Angel film and statements made in it should also be removed from the Larry Norman article as the film and its director are equally unreliable sources. In reference to me "maligning" Di Sabatino, I am merely showing his unreliability as a source in the same way my source is being dismissed. Startropic1 (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Startropic1, you are replying here to my reminder to you on your talk page about the WP:Reliable source rules. I advise you to actually read that policy before going on to talk about notarized statements, etc. Wikipedia places no value at all on notarized statements until they are properly *published*. It's not much use for you to wish that our policy were different. If Allen Flemming actually gets a biography of Larry Norman published (though not by a vanity press) then his book will become citable in Wikipedia for whatever it says. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright let me point something out in that policy then: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit]

Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity

I'm fairly certain that by establishing its credibility by citing the official Larry Norman website: http://www.larrynorman.com , a FIRST party source btw, the above criteria has been met. Furthermore let me point out that http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com is NOT a wiki or similar site that anyone can post to.

On a side note there is another thing that needs tidying on the existing Larry Norman page: The reference to the new site replacing the old Failed Angle site is there, but someone accidentally removed the reference to the previous site, making the nature of the new site rather unclear. Startropic1 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Further to what EdJohnston has stated, I'll also comment that Startropic1 seems to want to talk about a separate issue than the one that I was presenting. I have created sub-headings to discuss the two issues separately. If I have misrepresented either topic, feel free to change it.
Before those discussions can be carried on intelligently, I have to state that "reliable source" has a very narrow interpretation on Wikipedia, certainly not as broad as could be used in other situations such as a scholarly paper or legal proceedings. Since these are both discussions about content to be included on Wikipedia, we must use the definitions on-hand. They can be found, as was linked to above, at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And regardless of what we discuss here, one may appeal to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have any single source accepted or rejected.
With that said, I have noticed a few problems in the article. There are two in-line external links that need to be removed. The first is to http://www.fallenangeldoc.com/ which is linked over the phrase "Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman: A Bible Story". The

second is in bare link of http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com. I have created a third section to deal with those. The third is that the albums in the discography are formatted incorrectly. They should be italicized. I can fix that in two weeks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Pam Newman article on thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com

I feel I've laid-out my argument against why the one article cannot be considered a RS, but I'll simply copy-and-paste it here.

  1. First, the author of this "story" is Alan Coughlin. There's no other story on the site by this author and there's no indication that the author has any credibility. No other writing credits by the author. However there is someone who goes by that name who writes a blog: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/TheSubjectiveAspectOfTheGospel.jsp
  2. Second, there's no statement of editorial oversight or anything that would help this site to meet the standards set at WP:RS.
  3. Third, there's no support for this statements made by Newman. It would be good to know the circumstances of the interview. Some of the statements were made on the interviewee's Facebook page, but there isn't a link to it to confirm that this is the case.
  4. "David Di Sabatino told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie." We have an unnamed "friend" who made a claim. This already sounds unreliable. Could you imagine going to your editor and saying that? The truth is that this "claim" has been made by various fans of Norman's and have been refuted by the director. The back-and-forth happens in Larry Norman fan sites and discussion boards.
  5. The title of the page and the addition to the article claim that Newman "recanted". I don't see a recantation anywhere in the story. To recant, is "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong and that you no longer agree with them" I see "I ... decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I." I don't see her saying that her past statements on Norman were wrong. She does say that she is "sorry [she] even shared anything with [Di Sabatino]. He just twisted my words and left out the most important part". I'm not sure how Newman's words were twisted, and Newman does not go on to clarify how that was the case. There was clearly editing out of material.

If there is something that proves that this source does meet RS, feel free to add it here. If we can't find anything to that end, then the source should be excluded.

However, I suspect that it may be used to support the statement that Newman had a change of heart related to allowing her image and statements to be used in the documentary. We cannot speculate on why Di Sabatino will not make another cut of the video excluding her statements. We also cannot state that she recanted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of the Di Sabatino documentary

Let's start by assuming that the documentary fails RS. If that were the case, then we should remove any statement in the article that uses the documentary as a source. That would then apply to "Solid Rock's business manager and several Solid Rock musicians organized an intervention with Norman in June 1980, which led him to begin closing the company." That can be found in the Recording career section. However, that statement is supported by four other references. Two of those are RSes that discuss the documentary and two are not related to the documentary.

However, I think Startropic1 wants the following to be removed:

Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman: A Bible Story is a controversial 2008 documentary on Norman's life by filmmaker David Di Sabatino. Fallen Angel includes interviews with several people who had worked with or been close to Norman thirty years earlier, including his first wife and Randy Stonehill, who recorded the film's official soundtrack, Paradise Sky.[170][171][172]
Norman and his second wife had refused to participate or cooperate in the project.[170][173] A cease and desist notice initiated by Norman's family temporarily prevented the film's public screening, and prompted Di Sabatino to file his own lawsuit against Solid Rock in March 2009.[174][175][176] Four months later, the case was settled out of court, allowing the film to be shown.[175][176][177] While interviewing Stonehill, Cross Rhythms' Mike Rimmer said the film portrayed Norman as "Machiavellian, particularly in his dealings with his artists."[173]

However, those numbers in brackets are not references to the documentary, they're third-party reviews of the film. And beyond that policy on representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic is being met. It says absolutely nothing about the subject but simply focuses on the controversy that the film created. Based on the coverage it received, it's worth a mention.

So what exactly would you like to see removed? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, despite starting with the assumption that the documentary fails RS, I don't believe it does. WP:SPS doesn't appear to extend to documentaries. If it did, I would argue that it is a collection of interviews and nothing else. However, since it's not used as a source that doesn't have support from additional sources, determining if it or isn't a RS isn't important for this section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests

Inline external link to http://www.fallenangeldoc.com/ over the copy that reads "Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman: A Bible Story". This violates WP:ELPOINTS #2. It should not be added to the EL section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Inline external link to http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com for the same reasons as above. I suggest removing the entire sentence as it is a non sequitur: it doesn't follow the sentence before it. It used to follow "In 2010, Norman's friend and authorized biographer Allen Flemming created the website "Failed Angle: The Truth Behind Fallen Angel", which uses material such as letters, tape recordings, and legal documents to dispute some of the claims made in the film." which was not supported by a self-reference and I believe, based on the rest of the section, would need a secondary source to be considered a RS. I cannot find any RS to support the site's notability or for the previous site.

If the whole sentence is kept, I propose the rewording it as follows:

Norman's friend and biographer, Allen Flemming, created a website that uses material such as letters, tape recordings, and legal documents to dispute some of the claims made in the film.[ref to the current site]

That edit removes the date, the inclusion of which would require an explanation of the expired domain. It also removes "authorized" as against WP:PEACOCK, but that could be added back. It also excludes the name of the now-expired site name, but we could include "The Truth About Larry Norman" if it doesn't read well without the site's name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick note here: the domain doesn't appear to be expired. It redirects to the new site: http://thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected. The domain registration expires 2016-03-05 and is redirecting to the new site, but it does not need to be restored. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. I've removed the first inline external link, and I've removed the last sentence of the section. As Walter Görlitz says, the previously removed sentence would need to be cited to a reliable source to put it back in, and the final sentence didn't make sense without it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Official Responses / Rebuttals

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

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

Request: Album Liner Notes Sources

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

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

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

Dispute Resolution

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

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

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

Thanks for the offer. I don't know that we need dispute resolution, but if you want to discuss the two sub-topics related to the reliability of sources and what material should and should not be included, as I started above you may. However, if dispute resolution is needed, I am willing to have you or another party mediate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I still have to catch up on the current issues in play, but thought I'd quickly chime in that I also thought Guy Macon did an admirable job entering into a prior dispute with this article and would welcome his assistance as well, if needed. Thanks also, Walter Görlitz, for making me aware of this current discussion.--CJ 01:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talk • contribs)
OK, let's start by agreeing that there will be no further edit warring and no further personal comments of any kind. Let's all agree to be calm, cool, and to base our arguments on reason and evidence.
Next, do we all understand the difference between Wikipedia making a claim (See WP:RS) with Wikipedia reporting that someone else made a claim (See WP:WEIGHT)? And do we all understand that WP:BLP overrides all other Wikipedia policies? Helpful hint: if you read those policies looking for justification for what you have already decided, you are doing it wrong. Don't try to make the policy fit your preferred version. Try to make your preferred version fit the policy. And not just a literal reading, either; try to understand the spirit of the policy as well as the letter. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely. I was accused of calling the other editor a liar. I don't recall doing that. I did make the initial revert by stating that they were "Primary source lies" and I have shown how the subject of the source did not actually recant anything.
I have re-read the two policies and the guideline. I was aware of the material, so it was a fast read, although I am more familiar with WEIGHT being called UNDUE.
Thanks for taking the time to step in and do this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We are going to forget about who called who what and move on as if none of that happened. Also, let's not say that the movie or the rebuttal website contains lies. In fact, don't even say that either of those unreliable sources says something that is not true. Instead, ask "do we accurately report what the movie says, whether it is true or not? Do we accurately report what the website says, whether it is true or not?" let's build a couple of paragraphs here on the talk page that we all agree do that. The next step is to decide whether to put some or all of the result in the article, but first let's create those couple of paragraphs so we know what we are accepting/rejecting. Either one of you can start by writing up something that you think is correct, and I will verify that the sources say what you claim they say. May I assume that you both have a copy of the film? It isn't on Netflix but I can get a copy elsewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I do have a copy of the film and there are many excepts on YouTube.
The film has RSes that discuss it and, if you look above, that's what is discussed in the article, not what the film itself says. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I am going to wait and see if we get any comments from the other side now. If they choose not to participate in the talk page discussion, any edits they make will be undiscussed edits. If that turns out to be the case, the general rule is that, unless there is a clear policy-based reason to do otherwise, the person who is willing to argue his case gets his way. It's an imperfect system, but there is only so much you can do if someone chooses not to discuss things. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not involved in this particular issue, but have been a part of previous discussions on this article. My recollection of prior consensus that was reached re: "Fallen Angel" and the response website was that if "Fallen Angel" is to be kept in the article (and I think it should be) then the response site (Failed Angle, or its current incarnation) must also be a part of the article. Is that your recollection, Walter?--CJ 23:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talk • contribs)
I don't recall that. Perhaps scanning the archives is in order, but it is my understanding that only material that could be supported with RSes should be included in any article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In general, when we include material (backed by a reliable source, of course) that criticizes an individual or group, we include any response made by that individual or group, even it the response is not mentioned by any other sources. This is an example of the published views of an otherwise unreliable source being considered a reliable source on the topic of that source's published views. In this particular case, however, the question arises as to whether the website actually is a response made by the individual or group, or whether it was made by a third party, so whether to include or exclude still needs to be discussed and decided. As I said before, I would like to see the exact wording that the various parties thing the article should contain. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is the link to the archived previous lengthy discussion. It would be nice to not have to plow this same field again, if possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Norman/Archive_3#Where_is_the_decision_that_FailedAngle.com_is_a_RS_or_not.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talk • contribs) 14:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to get everyone to stop repeating the same arguments that have not swayed anyone in the past. Why would we want to revisit something that didn't work the first time?
This was covered at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Larry Norman, and I see no reason why the conclusion I came to then would isn't still valid. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You and I are on the same page, Guy. Your conclusion at the time from your link above:
"I looked them over and I agree, neither the video or the website comes close to being a reliable source. I think that you could get away with mentioning that the video and the website exist, (or maybe not, I am open to debate on that) but it would be wrong to use the content of either in the article. Mentioning just one or just the other seems unfair to my eyes, but again I am open to debate on that. Using the content I am sure of: Don't. (Full disclosure: I met Larry Norman on the street of Hollywood in the late 60's. Don't remember much other than him advising me to stay away from drugs, which I was already doing)."
There are issues with both sources, making it a both or neither proposition. We went with including both last time and don't see a reason to change now. If, however, there is now sentiment to remove the response website from the article, the movie should similarly be removed. CJ 22:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove anywhere that the documentary is used as a source. I don't care. Anything else? You obviously have not read what I wrote above: it's only used to support one statement that is also supported by four other sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I apologize for the delay in my reply. It's been a very busy weekend for me. Also thank you to Walter Gorlitz for creating the two headings above clarifying the dispute of the website and the dispute of the film. I'd like to request that those two sections of the talk page be kept here beyond the two week protection and the current dispute, (perhaps organized a little better later for future discussion), because on both matters there are still going to be items released and/or published by both parties, (the Larry Norman Estate/Biographer and those responsible for the film), in the future. I would like to note a couple things in response to Walter Gorlitz's comments directly above for our gracious mediator:

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

Proposed Edits

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

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

1. "Closing" of Solid Rock

To quote the article:

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

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

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

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

  • A. Daniel Amos
The band Daniel Amos claimed in the Fallen Angel film, and in other sources, that Larry caused delays with their album "Horrendous Disc", and ultimately caused the end of their career.
The original Failed Angle page on the subject, (archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100511204916/http://www.failedangle.com/site/da/da.html and also appears IDENTICALLY at the new URL the truthaboutlarrynorman.com here: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/shot-down/daniel-amos/ ), cites the Daniel Amos Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Amos#Discography , which shows they released no less than TEN albums AFTER Larry supposedly ended their career.
Furthermore the current Solid Rock online shop continues to sell two different versions of the Horrendous Disc, you can see this here: http://www.thesolidrockshop.com/collectors-items-page-2.html
Not the sort of thing someone who wants one's career over would do eh?
I'll come back to this and revisit the actual dispute between Larry & Daniel Amos in a bit.
  • B. Randy Stonehill
The disputed history between Larry and Stonehill goes far beyond the scope of Solid Rock. It is a fact that Larry married Stonehill's ex-wife 2 years after she had divorced Stonehill. Over the years Stonehill has skewed the timeline & chronology of events between Larry's first divorce, Stonehill's divorce, and Larry's relationship with Stonehill's exwife. Court documents from Randy's divorce, (a copy of which can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100524172226/http://www.failedangle.com/site/randy/divorcejudgment.pdf ), dispute Randy's claims on the matter, but this section is about Stonehill's involvement with Solid Rock. I will focus on this, but I'm going to have to come back to this later.
  • C. The 1980 Meeting & Dissolution
Actually, the Solid Rock Records Wikipedia article does a pretty good job of covering this, with plenty of sources. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_Rock_Records
I think mainly the Larry Norman article doesn't quite cover it properly, in its reasonable efforts to remain brief on the matter. It would be helpful if that bit, which I quoted above, included a link to the Solid Rock Records Wikipedia article. The quote used in the article here sort of puts all the blame squarely on the shoulders of Larry Norman. Certainly, Larry Norman did contribute to Solid Rock's problems, but the other parties involved were equally to blame. To quote the Solid Rock Records article:
 "I DIDN'T DO IT RIGHT: You know I never cared about money, so it's something I never worried about. Which was probably not helpful to running a
 record company and keeping track of everything to the artists' satisfaction. ... I couldn't run the label without competent assistants. I
 trusted Philip [Mangano] to keep track of royalties, gave him an open checkbook, and never looked over his shoulder. I thought he was my other
 half. And Philip just wasn't that man. He made a lot of money ... and I'm sorry about your royalties, but I ran the musical side and Philip ran
 the business side."
Furthermore the Solid Rock Records article notes that with nearly all parties involved in that meeting involved in divorce proceedings, (Larry included), Larry felt that ethically he should dissolve all professional contracts within the group. Furthermore he wanted all those artists to move on to better labels.
While Solid Rock as it was technically came to an end. Larry and his estate continued to use Solid Rock to this day for his own music as well as continued distribution of Solid Rock's entire back catalogue and merchandise. In an official capacity, Larry remained "signed" to Solid Rock beyond this meeting and for the remainder of his career until his death.
The Solid Rock Records Wikipedia article already has plenty of sources for everything I've mentioned here, so you can just refer to that article for sources. Startropic1 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow, in going through the archives of this talk page I found this:
"June 1980 Solid Rock meeting & reliable sources
I have just reverted Walter's deletion. Let's discuss the added/deleted material and try to reach a consensus we can live with.
Here's the relevant additions I made originally: According to Di Sabatino, the concerns of Stonehill, Taylor and Howard and other Solid Rock musicians led to an intervention on June 17, 1980 with Norman organized by Philip Mangano, the Solid Rock business manager,[16][393][394] whereas Norman's brother, Charles claims that Norman was "tired of Phil Mangano's business ethics ... so he fired Phil [and a] few days later, Phil staged a coup d'etat and convinced a couple of the acts (Randy, DA, Tom Howard) that they would be better off if he could manage them".[395] According to Charles Norman, "Larry knew Phil's takeover was coming, but saw it as a good thing since he no longer wanted to work with Phil or those artists anyway".[396] According to Rimmer, Fallen Angel claims that "it was at this memorable meeting that Larry, rather than bowing to the concerns of his fellow artists and the Solid Rock family, chose to strike out. With accusations against his co-workers, he began the process of winding up the Solid Rock operation and the dreams of the artistic community came crashing down."[352] Charles Norman claims that "At the 'infamous' meeting, Larry very nicely released them from their contractual obligations to Solid Rock. He didn't have to. He did it to get rid of them, more or less".[397]
In the editorial summary, Walter makes the point that Charles Norman is not a reliable source. My response is that in this paragraph, we have DDS' version of the meeting (based on claims of Stonehill, Mangano?, and Terry Taylor), that the meeting was "an intervention". This is a subjective characterization of course. It is their claim. It is reliable. It is verifiable. It may not be true, but WP's standard is verifiability NOT truth. As WP seeks to be balanced, I have added the contrasting claim from Charles Norman (based on claims of Larry Norman and an audio-recording not yet released to my knowledge), that it was in fact a "coup d'etat". This is another subjective characterisation of course. It is a claim and written in article as such, from a verifiable source. Charles was not there, but neither was DDS, or Mike Rimmer. So we will be left with a "he said, he said account", until audio recording is released, and authenticated. Its best we can do at this time. So we have both claim and counter-claim, so it is balanced and meets WP standards. We did the same on several other contentious matters eg airplane accident, departure from People!, etc.smjwalsh (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)"
I don't mean to dig up the past/people's dirty laundry, but I think this is important to this discussion. The above is precisely how this topic should have been covered. I don't see in the archives where are consensus was met in that original discussion. Startropic1 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Timeline & chronology, true, Stonehill does this even in concerts.207.47.68.121 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2. Larry Norman's Illegitimate Son From Australia

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

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

While this is covered in the film, it is by no means covered exclusively by the film. The matter actually began a year after Larry Norman's death. In 2009 the Larry Norman Estate was served a lawsuit by Daniel Robinson and the Wallace family from Australia asserting that Daniel Robinson was in fact Larry Norman's illegitimate son. To make a long story short, 6 months later both parties appeared before a Judge and the lawsuit was withdrawn. This is one article from the original Failed Angle website that does NOT appear identically on thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com . According to the Failed Angle article, Daniel's stepfather was threatening another lawsuit and therefore Mr. Flemming at the time had to withhold any documents from publication for obvious legal reasons. You can see the original article here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100511210814/http://www.failedangle.com/site/wallace/wallace.html The counterpart article on thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com is attributed to Allen Flemming and is a lot more forthcoming with information. In this case I don't even need to cite thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com at all, because Allen Flemming went ahead and cited several external 3rd party sources.

Here are the sources he cited:

Public letter from Daniel's mother claiming Larry is Daniel's father: http://jennifermccallum.blogspot.com/

Rebuttal by Larry's brother Charles Norman on Care2.com: http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/730980

Youtube video of Daniel & his mother talking about Larry Norman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRXP4pAwX-s

Another rebuttal from Charles Norman that I already cited elsewhere: http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Charles_Norman__Talking_about_Larry_Norman_and_the_Fallen_Angel_documentary_/48678/p3/

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

3. The Fallen Angel film & the Failed Angle/truthaboutlarrynorman.com Rebuttal

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

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

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

Sources:

http://www.larrynorman.com Identifies Allen Flemming as "Larry Norman biographer Allen Flemming", and has some articles on site published by Mr. Flemming himself.

http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=12589

http://www.failangle.com redirects to the new site http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Failed-Angle/114494451912560 Failed Angle facebook page, which is linked to both versions of the aforementioned website.

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Charles_Norman__Talking_about_Larry_Norman_and_the_Fallen_Angel_documentary_/48678/p1/ An interview with Larry's brother Charles, in which Charles talks about the Failed Angle site as well as Allen Flemming, and a number of the topics we're discussing here.

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

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

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

Here's another place it has been archived, courtesy of the always reliable Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20100420183656/http://www.failedangle.com/

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

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

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

Now you guys have got me confused. I thought we established somewhere above that both the film and the website(s) held the same weight, (the "both or neither" argument.) The original "Failed Angle" website is cited elsewhere in the existing article, as I and Walter Gorlitz have both noted.
As far as this proposed "Controversies" section, I agree that this would be a good solution. I already outline the 3 points of controversy above:
  • 1. The Solid Rock closure/artist feud, which I will attempt to clarify better
  • 2. The claims of Larry fathering an illegitimate son in Australia
  • 3. The Fallen Angel film itself and the rebuttal site(s)
I also agree with trying to streamline the information and not have a drawn out detailed back and forth between the two parties. I think, however, that there is a middle ground we can establish between simply saying "these controversies exist" and the aforementioned drawing things out in every detail that we all agree would be very much excessive. I will flesh out these three points better here on the talk page, with sources, and from there we can see about streamlining the material for inclusion in the article itself. Perhaps in the end we might want to make a separate article for "controversies" but let's wait and discuss that "bridge" when we get to it.
One thing that I am missing here is that someone noted that there was a previous discussion about the article getting too long. I have no intention of disputing the consensus reached in that matter, but it would be helpful if someone could fill me in so I don't inadvertently start stepping into the same length problem again with the edits we're discussing now. Startropic1 (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No Clubfoot Johnson you don't understand my point. The documentary is not a reliable source but there are reliable sources that have written about the documentary. I stated that in the discussion above that no one has bothered to respond to.
Startropic1, Clubfoot pointed out that an earlier discussion, which can be found in the archives, concluded that if the documentary is discussed the attack website should be included. That is clearly not an acceptable position either as only RSes should be included. Further to that point, the documentary is only discussed as being controversial and none of its points of discussion are added to the article in direct reference to the documentary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There's a couple things I should point out here. 1. As Clubfoot Johnson pointed out, the film has yet to be published by a third party--only self published by the director himself. I found a claim on IMDB that I have yet to properly authenticate that the film tour, (of public showings), was cut dramatically short and ended "due to lack of interest." It would seem, if I understand the Wikipedia policy correctly, that the film's publication fails Wikipedia's requirements even moreso than the rebuttal website. Furthermore, the sources you have cited documenting the film merely document the film's existence. They do not corroborate any of the information the film itself is cited for.
2. On the subject of the rebuttal website, I actually found something interesting about the biographer Allen Flemming. It would seem that he has been published by a (possibly) reliable third party after all. The current front page of thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com cites the article being displayed there, (written by Allen Flemming), was originally published in a magazine called Greater Than Magazine. I'll have to research the merit & nature of this magazine. The article itself doesn't really pertain to our current discussion, but perhaps it verifies Mr. Flemming's reliability? I found something else in rereading the interview with Charles Norman on crossrhythms.co.uk : In the interview Charles states that the original Failed Angle site used the same HTML template as the official LarryNorman.com website. He also states that he supplied Allen Flemming with the information found on the Failed Angle site and also "worked on the site with Flemming." You can see this here: http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Charles_Norman__Talking_about_Larry_Norman_and_the_Fallen_Angel_documentary_/48678/p5/ A 3rd party publication authenticating the Failed Angle site, no? I think I've got more here than the film has in its corner. Startropic1 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Several points (addressed to all participants, not just to the comment above this one):
  • Without naming names, WP:CIVIL is not optional. If I see any further incivility, there will be consequences. And if that isn't enough, be aware that the person who make personal comments often loses the argument and doesn't get his way when when it gets to the point where an administrator intervenes.
  • Re: Greater Than Magazine, if it is the one mentioned at http://www.greaterthanmag.com/ ("an online magazine") it appears to be basically a blog. The only other possibility I could find was http://www.mpf.com/whoweare/staff?xtags=staff-associates&item_id=603230 talking about "a Michigan-based, arts-and-culture publication called Greater Than Magazine", but I would need to see some actual evidence that this is the Greater Than Magazine we are talking about.
  • Re: "...concluded that if the documentary is discussed the attack website should be included. That is clearly not an acceptable position either as only RSes should be included." Wrong. If (and this is not certain) the documentary is to be included, and if (as appears to be the case) the website can be confirmed to be associated with the Norman family/estate, that alone makes the website notable enough for inclusion. People and organizations sometimes get critical material published about them. Sometimes that material meets our standards and is included in the article. Think about the reason behind our standards. We don't serve our readers by including just any criticism, no matter how notable. The reader needs to see significant criticism. Once we have determined that a certain critical source meets our standards and include it, do we serve our readers by excluding any official response? No. We do not. It is a basic matter of fairness. If Wikipedia reports negative information about an individual, group, or organization, it would be unfair and unjust to not report any response. The fact that the criticism is notable makes the response notable. If anyone doubts me on this we can get an official response, but I already know what the answer will be from watching dozens of similar cases go to dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for you take on this, Guy Macon. I agree that the rebuttal website must be included if the documentary is included in the article. Given that this was also the previously arrived at consensus - going back more than 2.5 years - I don't think that the rebuttal website should have been removed unilaterally without additional discussion or attempt to reach a different consensus. I'd like to see it returned to the article per the previous consensus while these other issues are sorted out. As it stands now, readers don't have access to a response to the claims made by the documentary. CJ (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I've never seen anything to support the statement that a self-published website or book associated with the subject of an article has a free pass and does not need RSes.
Further, there only one thing supported by the documentary, and as stated above, that one thing has secondary backing from two sources that are unrelated to a discussion of the documentary. I'm fine with removing the three sources. The documentary is not discussed in this article except to say that it is "controversial" and then goes on to describe some of the issues related with the making and its aftermath. Nothing of the contents is discussed. This is what Startropic1 appears to be claiming. I'm not sure what needs to see WP:BALANCE in that discussion since it's entirely neutral. However, if we can find any source that says the website is important then we should certainly use that to support the counter-claims made there, otherwise, the best we can do is state
Norman's official biographer created a website to counter several claims made in the documentary.
However, no link to either website would be appropriate without adding a direct link to the documentary. Am I correct in that assumption?
So what sort of disservice are we offering readers with what's present. I have repeatedly asked for what needs to be changed and instead I am offered long arguments about things that aren't in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems this problem is a little farther reaching than anyone in this discussion was aware of. I've noticed over the course of reviewing the information pertaining to all the "controversies", that there are in fact several other articles on Wikipedia that have cited the original Failed Angle site for various things. I'm not going to debate any of those other articles here, I just thought it was worth noting that seemingly a number of other editors already accepted the rebuttal site(s) as a valid source.
RE: I have repeatedly asked for what needs to be changed and instead I am offered long arguments about things that aren't in the article. I'll admit this whole discussion has snowballed a bit and it has become a lot of material to digest. As I mentioned before though, finding other issues when examining something is just what happens when one conducts proper research. When I made the original edit that got this entire discussion started, it was a starting point. There are other one-sided claims throughout the article pertaining to the 3 points I have been focusing on. These also needed to be addressed, but a dispute arose upon the first attempt to address one of these one-sided statements. It is also correct that these one-sided statements have been made via sources other than the film. The problem has become that all these parties making these claims against Larry Norman came together at a single point being the Fallen Angel film. So this poorly sourced film became the focal point of this discussion, when indeed the real issue is fair documentation of these "controversies" from both sides. Unfortunately these claims are being made via the one-sided film on many sites, including youtube, so a lot of people are seeing the accusations without the rebuttals. Wikipedia is certainly not supposed to be the means to rectify such a problem, but as it has been pointed out, it is at minimum supposed to provide fair coverage from both sides. I agree with what seems to be the consensus in reorganizing into a section, (or if necessary a separate article), about "controversies." Startropic1 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking a "Controversies" section would suffice at this point, but depending on how it takes shape spinning it off into a separate article may make sense. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with, as I think it will be a welcome improvement to the article. CJ (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE begins, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We need RSes that support Norman's claims and to the best of my knowledge, the material you're stating doesn't meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think WP:UNDUE applies here, because we're talking about the claims of a group vs the rebuttals of an individual, (albeit via those left to make those rebuttals on his behalf.) Thus, Larry Norman's side would always be the minority. WP:UNDUE describes the views of two differing groups and doesn't seem to work very well in the context of a discussion about an individual. In any case, we've established above that Failed Angle is associated with the Larry Norman family. I have cited sources other than the two versions of Failed Angel, are you now suggesting that all those other sources are also unreliable? All these sources have been accepted for several other articles on Wikipedia, so clearly there must be a consensus that these are all RSes. Startropic1 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Link to RSN case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com_and_www.failedangle.com Startropic1 (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

External links modified August 2015

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Larry Norman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many links were dead even in the archive. www.failedangle.com removed because they were one of many refs to the subject. http://allaboutgod.ning.com/group/Christianmusic/forum removed because it is not a RS and it was a forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Norman/Archive_4&oldid=1027177635"