Talk:Larry Norman/Archive 1

Cleanup
This article needs many fixes, it's written very unprofessionally. Already fixed the first paragraph. Wanka 20:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My intent is to clean this up and make it much more professional. Give me time and hope Larry hangs out til I get this done. Ee60640 09:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

History
There is no clear history. The After Break-up section seems out of place. This section has to come after his history with People!. Some childhood history may be interesting, since he started writing music from an early age.

A lot of the People! history seems to be a cut and paste job using the Wikipedia entry for People! entry as the source. This should be reduced to a reference. 70.88.124.205 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Horrendous disc
Any idea how long it was shelved for ? (How long they took it around companies, and when it was finally ready) ? -- Beardo 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

People have been adding full pages about Horrendous Disc into this article, without any citations. This is a giant headache, so I'm asking that all information about the article be placed in the main article Horrendous Disc. I'll provide a link in the main text.

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
References for what specifically?

Anything and everything, really. An article this length should have 10 - 20 inline references. -- Beardo 01:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a ton of citations to random statements that to me sound more like legend than truth. Please show proof of these statements (such as Townsend being heavily influenced by Norman to write Tommy) or otherwise they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamvery (talk • contribs) at 16:35, 21 November 2006

After a LOT of work, this article finally has citations for all of its statements. Takemybooksaway (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: the "Tommy" statement, I have balanced the language of it to represent Townshend's point of view as well. Takemybooksaway (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

plagiarism
much of this is directly from Larry's bios on his own Web site

http://www.larrynorman.com/bio.html71.155.212.206 07:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Much written about Larry Norman at People! - accurate?
For those interested, it appears that the user at IP address 71.237.162.156 has written much about Larry Norman in the People! article. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the information, but am hoping someone will check. This is the same IP address that was used to blank the Larry Norman page a few times (see Special:Contributions/71.237.162.156). Thought this might interest someone, Jamie L.talk 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup and summary expansion
I standardized the article references for wikipedia mark-up and then expanded the summary and rewrote it, hopefully to make the article tone and verifiability better reflect manual of style guidelines for biographies of living people.

The references still include a lot of material from Larry's site, but (I think) the majority of what's in the summary also has strong secondary sources to back it up.

There still appears to be material in the main article that needs stronger citations, especially regarding some of the information relating to his influence on other artists.

Some of the language and material may also need to be copy edited for clarity and double checked to help strengthen the neutrality of the article as well. Awotter (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help (and for welcoming me to Wikipedia.) I've added the citation for the Bob Dylan references. Takemybooksaway (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Limit use of CCM sources
After looking through the article, I think it's best that we limit the amount of sources that come from CCM industry sites, fanzines, etc. First, using these skews the language of the article toward the point of view of one body of music that he's had an influence on. His bio is then viewed through their lens.

A second, bigger problem is that these sources are rife with revisionism. Some of the sources retroactively call Norman's early albums "CCM albums" when no such industry existed at the time. A similar problem occurs when these articles label him a "Christian rock" artist or idolize him as "the father of Christian rock" when no such genre existed at the time and he in fact recorded on mainstream rock labels. (Capitol, MGM, Verve)

In effect, this is like calling Muddy Waters a rock artist because he influenced rock music and rock bands covered his music. CCM fanzines tend to try to retroactively co-opt Norman into their industry instead of note his influence on it, and we should avoid this kind of revisionism in the Wikipedia article. Takemybooksaway (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that you need to let references speak for themselves, especially when they come from strong sources, deleting the phrase "father of Christian rock" for example is very close to expressing a personal point of view, especially when it is used over and over again in mainstream publications like Christianity Today. All that I have done so far is to make the format as close as possible to an encyclopedic lead summary as I can. The few statements that I looked at and changed in the body of the article were changed because they did not reflect either Norman's primary statements or had any strong secondary information. I'm trying to be very careful at this point because the article in the end has to be as neutral as possible. Thanks.Awotter (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to remove the reference completely, but to relocate it to the section denoting his influence on Contemporary Christian music. While the sources should speak for themselves, my concern is that some of the sources themselves are not neutral. To assert that Norman's albums from the late 60s, for example, are "Contemporary Christian music" albums is not honest. Many of the CCM websites have a tendency to embellish, because they are ultimately commercial websites. Takemybooksaway (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, I put back what was there because both statements in the sentence are referenced by mainstream publications and have multiple references. I agree that much of the article material probably needs to be pared and strengthened and should not rely at all on iffy sources, but you do have to remember that a wide variety of folks are going to read and contribute to the article and provide a different point of view from those who may be more familiar with what Norman says as an artist and what he contributed before the growth of what people call the Christian music industry.Awotter (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My point was to choose better sources, which I think we agree on. The "father of Christian rock" phrase has enough independent confirmation to remain in the article, I just made a mess trying to move it. My main concern is to what extent Norman can be retrofitted into certain genres; I'm a historian in real life and think that some of the industry point-of-view smacks of embellishing the past. Takemybooksaway (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'm a historian in real life and think that some of the industry point-of-view smacks of embellishing the past." True enough. I added most of the notes to provide his point of view as best as possible and it is important to put things like influences in context. It's only been recently that many black artists have been given their due appreciation for what the segregated pop culture  liberally borrowed from them. If I remember correctly that influence is something Norman has acknowledged from the beginning.
 * I'm such an old fart I don't know half the bands mentioned, secular or religious!19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference names
I forgot to post this earlier but if there is a reference you want to use already in the article again (unless it cites specific book pages) some are already named   and you can use them as many times as you like by placing this   where you want the reference to repeat. If you need to you can use that form for any reference and the software will group them if they are used more than once.Awotter (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

U2
OK so I asked how we know U2 are fans. My request for a citation was deleted and I received the response that it is found in the section that I partially read. I see an article from Knet180radio that says U2 has called themselves fans. Does anyone have an actual quote? A link to an interview? I've been a U2 fan for a long time and have never heard them say this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.152.232 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a reference, page number and footnote for that section from Frank Black (Thompson) of the Pixies who met Norman for the first time when Norman visited U2 backstage at a concert the Pixies were opening for. A lot of the information from those bio pages come from Larry Norman as a primary source, but for most of it it seems you can find secondary sources like the Pixie book.Awotter (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also clarify the use of the KNetradio article... it is actually Larry Norman's biography from the Gospel Music Hall of Fame. The radio website was the only one on the web where I could find the bio reprinted in its entirety, and that's why I used it. Takemybooksaway (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it says that Frank Black met Norman at a U2 COncert. It still doesn't say that U2 are fans. Thats what I'm trying to find here. How do we know? Do we have an actual quote or interview? This ""Thompson: I remember my first opportunity to meet Larry Norman came through U2 of all people. A lot of people in the U2 organization are Christians, basically" doesn't really say anything about them being fans. The reason I am pushing for a more direct quote or reference is that I have heard people insist both sides of this. Some insist that U2 are definitely not fans, others insist they definitely are. I have yet to see anything really clear and direct that says one way or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.152.232 (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference didn't just say Black met Norman at a U2 concert, it said he met Norman through U2 and was told Norman would be there beforehand. It's entirely possible that Norman, having performed with U2 at the same venue at one time invited himself but it's not unreasonable to also assume the benefit of the doubt and say he was there because U2 invited him. I personally have more of a problem with the statement that People! in some way inspired Tommy, especially since that apparently comes from an album liner. When I looked for specific references there were at least two books about U2 that showed up on Google that referenced Norman, unfortunately, unlike the Pixies book there was no preview of the relevant text available, at least not yet and one of those is by a person very involved with the Irish Christian music scene and Norman for a long time. At this point I'd like to see a reference that says at least one of U2 weren't fans.Awotter (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the phrase "Norman fans" from the sentence to solve the problem. However, if you're aware of a debate on whether U2 actually likes Larry Norman or not, please direct us to it. If not, we'll assume that The Gospel Music Hall of Fame is an adequate source, and that U2 does not invite artists whose music they despise backstage.


 * I actually have no idea how U2 met Norman; that would be interesting for us to find out. They did both headline the Greenbelt Festival, but not the same year. I seriously doubt that anyone gets to invite himself to the Zoo TV tour. Takemybooksaway (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're making a couple of assumptions. First, simply being able to go backstage at a show does not make U2 fans of that person. I'm sure there are thousands of people that pass through the backstage area of a U2 show aside from crew and venue workers. There are people in radio. People in print media. People with connections. Friends of so and so. Etc, etc. I know people that have been backstage at Paul McCartney shows. They definitely weren't good friends with Mr McCartney. Playing Greenbelt doesn't mean anything either. Hundreds of bands and artists have played Greenbelt. Amy Grant has played Greenbelt if I'm not mistaken. Should we assume that U2 are Amy Grant fans? We seem to be making a jump from him being backstage at a show to the band being fans.


 * Its not a raging debate where you can find a hundred websites and blogs debating the issue. But, as far as I know, the only person claiming that U2 are Norman fans is Norman himself. The people that I have heard question that are industry related people, including some with connections to U2. That seems like a reasonable amount of doubt. Thats why I would like to see something in U2's words to settle it once and for all. A bio like the one on the gospel music hall of fame page does not necessarily give it credibility. All it means is that the author has heard Norman call U2 fans of his. It doesn't mean that the author has researched it and found it to be true. You may have removed one mention of them being fans, but it still claims that "U2 became fans of Larry Norman's music." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.152.232 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We're in agreement that the relationship between Norman and U2 needs further research. However, we have to go with the weight of evidence so far. So far, we have one source naming U2 members as Norman fans, and zero disputing that claim. The Gospel Music Hall of Fame seems to be an independent source; based on what we know so far, Norman was hospitalized (presumably on his deathbed at the time) and couldn't make it to the awards ceremony. If Norman was dealing with failing health prior to the ceremony, then they likely didn't send him a questionnaire for the bio...I have to conclude that the writer probably did actual research instead.


 * On the other hand, just because the evidence points to validating that statement, that doesn't mean that the Hall of Fame source couldn't be absolutely wrong. If we had a source disputing what it says, or one pointing to a debate over the relationship between Norman and U2, we would definitely need to make a note of it. Based on the current information, though, the current text stands. Takemybooksaway (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't prove a negative. It needs to be proven that U2 are fans. Its impossible to prove that they're not. Solkaige (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet it's amazing how you can disprove a positive, if you try. We have a source stating that U2 are fans of Norman. All you have to do is take the time to disprove the source.


 * Now, moving away from the minor issue of fandom to the larger issue of researching the relationship between Norman and U2, I have written U2 biographer Steve Stockman to see if he can offer some insight. If anyone would know, he would...if he responds. Takemybooksaway (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good news! I got a reply from Steve Stockman already, and based on his opinion (he has literally written the book on U2) Norman is not enough of an influence on U2's music to warrant the second paragraph, so I'm removing it. He does say that Larry talks about it in his liner notes, but that Norman has a tendency to "flower it up." Steve referred to a rumor that Bono and Norman had some kind of meeting when he last visited Oregon, but doesn't personally have any documented evidence of it.


 * Based on his recommendations, I'm going to broaden the first paragraph about U2, place "fans" in quotation marks (only because it's quoted in the Gospel Music Hall of Fame article) and completely remove the second U2 paragraph. Takemybooksaway (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus freak
Didn't he do a cover of the Dc talk song Jesus freak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.71.79 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, either in Holland, or with a band called Holland, don't remember which. I had the song at one point--Kyle van der Meer (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a HM Magazine Cover CD put out years back. The Mother of all Tribute Albums was the name and can be read about here -   I have it, good album.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lnorman9.gif
Image:Lnorman9.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cause of death?
It's hinted to be a "weak heart". But maybe amidst all the worship, something could be added about what it was, specifically, that killed him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not very familiar with the guy, but I'll have to look up a 2002 Charisma magazine article about him. I know from that article that Norman had been in poor health for some time, but I forgot any specifics. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cause of death wasn't mentioned which is why there was no speculation. Far from being a "worship" article I think there's been a lot of effort recently to clean-up what was here previously. It's hard to balance out the facts of a person's life vs. what's available in reliable sources.Awotter (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After a heart attack in Holland in 1992, part of Norman's heart died - some reports say 60% loss of function, others 75%. From that time, he was dogged by health problems.  I met him in 2007, and he looked (off-stage) an old, sick man (though not the least bit unhappy).  During the last 16 years, I understand he was never really well, but at times he was been better than others - and during those periods of relative health was able to record.  He did have a pace-maker fitted, which stabilised his health for a while, but with the damaged heart (rather than weak heart), his days were numbered.  Cause of death? Heart failure.  But I guess we'll never know, without the doctors' report.  Matthewdjb (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries based on this article?
I was reading some of the obituaries in Google News, and it is uncanny how many of the same details are in them as this article. Is it possible that some of the newspaper writers referenced this Wikipedia article? In a weird (and somewhat morbid) way, we might have actually written Larry Norman's obituary in the last month and a half... Takemybooksaway (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:People ILOVEYOU 1968.jpg
Image:People ILOVEYOU 1968.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cause of Death
The last Interview Larry ever gave is available for use on this web site but was removed and I was told to come to this page to discuss the possibility of putting it back into the links section. The segment is 2 hours long and Larry discusses many of the things mentioned in this article. The interview is a good first hand source. Any suggestions? - I am new to this and have not been doing the editing properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellewho (talk • contribs) 16:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the link? ... richi (hello) 19:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.drewmarshall.ca/65.93.110.182 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nom

 * nommed the article for GA. Will probably be weeks 'til it gets reviewd. later! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

History - Could someone of authority please add this info to the article?
OK, I am old enough to have been around for Larry Norman's early career, I am a definite fan of that era. He was definitely in an adversarial relationship with churches in the early (1969-1976) stage of his career. Churches would constantly refuse to allow him to use their facilities, and so he almost always played local high school or college auditoriums, which were packed by word-of-mouth because the churches would also forbid members from advertising his concerts. Some of the 'bad blood' between Norman and the church was because of his shoulder length, blond - almost white hair, and blue jeans and boots attire, but then much of the controversy was created by Norman himself. He constantly criticized the churches and other Christian artists, sometimes with his very dry, straight-faced humor, and sometimes with a bit of acid. In spite of the controversy, in 1972 Norman was included in Billy Graham's 'Explo 72' youth convention in Dallas Texas, alongside 'Love Song', Johnny Cash, Andre Crouch and the Disciples, and others. This exposure was very important to the success of his "Upon This Rock" and "Only Just Visiting This Planet" albums. He contributed some of the most important songs of the early 'Jesus Movement' such as 'I Wish We'd All Been Ready', 'Sweet Song Of Salvation' and 'Why Should The Devil Have All The Good Music?'. Larry Norman was a victim of a plane crash in the 1990's and the physical problems that he has had since are largely as a result of the injuries he received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't add it if we don't have a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, etc.) to quote from and cite. Sorry. Ling.Nut (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some citations that relate to much of what I have written.

'Remembering Christian Rock Maverick Larry Norman'. Chris Willman. Entertainment Weekly.com. 2/26/08. http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/02/remembering-chr.html

'Explo72' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explo_'72

"The Great Jesus Rally In Dallas". Life Magazine. June 30,1972.

'Larry Norman, Singer of Christian Rock Music', Dies at 60, Dennis Hevwesi, New York Times, March 4, 2008,http://www.larrynorman.com/pdfs/New_York_Times.pdf

"Larry Norman, 'Father of Christian Rock,' Dies at 60". Sarah Pulliam, Christianity Today. 2/26/08. http://www.larrynorman.com/pdfs/Christianity_Today2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.96.106.130 (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GA fail
I am sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am failing it. Here are some things to fix before renomination:

✅ ✅ ✅ ✅ Good luck with improving the article! Nikki 311  01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A documentary on Norman's life is due out in 2008. - I don't think this is appropriate for the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is only supposed to summarize the main points of the article, not present new information.
 * The picture in the infobox is a current candidate for speedy deletion.
 * Image:LN ONLYVISITING.JPG needs a specific fair-use rationale for this article.
 * All the citation needed tags need to be addressed.
 * The paragraphs are short and choppy. Merge or expand any paragraph that is only one or two sentences long.
 * Per WP:TRIVIA, the trivia needs to be merged into the prose of the article or deleted.
 * There are quite a few Manual of Style problems, so the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit, perhaps from the League of Copyeditors.
 * Addressed some of the concerns aboveAwotter (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam links
Links to commercial web sites will be removed from the article when they solicit donations, especially if they are for non-industry recognized awards and/or so called "museums".Awotter (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

External links policy
The policy (WP:EL) suggests keeping links to a minimum number of relevant and authoritative content, it also suggests incorporating information into the article if possible. I am posting a copy of the current list now with those links I think might fall into the reference category.
 * Larry Norman Interview
 * Larry Norman at 60
 * Obituary in The Guardian, 27 February 2008
 * Obituary in The Times, 7 March 2008
 * Larry Norman's tragic post-mortem by Arsenio Orteza, World Magazine, 12 July 2008Awotter (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Paternity allegations
This is obviously going to be a difficult and controversial issue which, at least to me, means editors need to pay extra care and attention to policy and guidelines regarding content and sources for articles. I'd like to ask all who have been contributing to the article to keep an eye on what's posted and help keep it accurate and appropriate. Thanks. Please reply here and not on my talk page if you have concerns. Awotter (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Bob Weigel/ Sound Doctorin' says: I agree. The current state of the page is totally out of hand with regard to people citing things in the Randy Stonehill section; claiming that everyone knew Larry was 'screwing' Sarah, Randy's x etc. I don't know what happened there but obviously if we don't want this page to be a tabloid, there should be FIRST HAND witnesses, not mass speculations. The everything established by two or more cohesive witnesses minimally. I've had trouble finding people who are anything but rumor mills on this topic. And I'm a person who has met and been disenfranchised by Larry over doctrinal differences so I have no particular bent towards proving anything one way or the other. I just want to see SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION...not gossip. David Di Sabatino in particular was a flagrantly malicious gossip who came into my mailbox with all kinds of unsubstantiated stuff that he refused to back up. Then Larry utterly dismantled most of those claims and I'm trying to get the archive *of* that post in his email group what a decade ago now probably now. I thought David would be done after that but no...he goes and makes a movie about it anyway! Whatever.

Marriages material
Although of some value - this particular set of edits are far too overblown. The is a biographical article about Larry Norman. Not an article about the "Marital influences on his music output" style article. If such an article is needed write one or include a much précised version of this material. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  13:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point but in your enthusiasm I believe you threw the baby out with the bathwater. It could be considered vandalism as it was a rather careless wholesale revert without regard to specific content in all sections. There were legitimate on point additions in relation to specific details of family that are almost standard in other WP biography articles. I was under the impression that discussion before arbitrary removal or reversion was WP policy and practice. I will now work to restore those areas more germane to the article.(smjwalsh (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)).
 * I do understand your point and if they had been my input, I would have been most put out, I hope and trust this is not the case. It is certainly not my intention to cause concern. I removed wholesale for two reasons. The effect of this enormous amount of material was itself enormous and woefully over balanced the article. Also I did not have the time to make more constructive edits at the time. Although you clearly have a point or two which need making and are apparently well researched and verifiable I would counsel far more tightness of writing, these is no need for this amount of material on this subject. Hence my comments on a separate article. "Backgrounds to Larry Norman's writing" or some such name. ::  Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  09:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. It will be no big deal to restore a more sensible amount of material, perhaps 5-10% of what was removed. I'm not precious about my contributions. I do have a tendency to over-research before culling eventually.(58.179.74.3 (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

Robert Weigel notes on 3/30/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sounddoctorin (talk • contribs) 05:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Could someone please address the fact that some of the information is not SOURCED for example "Everyone at solid rock KNEW that larry was screwing..." people..the PROBLEM I have here is with the word 'knew'....pardon me but that DEMANDS a source. Namely..everyone at Solid Rock who is still available for comment. How did they *know* this. That should be INCLUDED with the allegation or this is nothing but a piece of crap page. Am I being understood here? We can't just have flailing statements like that. Did someone CATCH him in the act? How do people know that Larry was just developing what he felt to be a healthy friendship? Unless someone actually DOCUMENTED fornication then it should NOT BE IN THE FREAKING ARTICLE. I was told not to add stuff to the page like..logic. That would be terrible. No we want this absurd hearsay accusation that just floats along by it's own momentum. What moron posted that? DiSabatino?
 * Having been one of a group of editors who originally cleaned this page up I am certainly concerned that it is now populated with information designed to further what seems to be an attack agenda rather than a neutral biography of Norman.Awotter (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the material deleted was added originally by me. I am sympathetic with the need to keep the article concise. Let me reassure you there is no attack agenda involved. I am a fan of LN's music. In the absence of any biography of LN that would have included much of what has been deleted, I sought to include material that is otherwise inaccessible to those interested in LN. There is no POV involved. As an historian, that would have been inconceivable to me. I have just started reviewing the edits made.(smjwalsh (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC))


 * The only reason material is removed is because it does not meet article standards. You need to adhere to WP:MOS guidelines in any case, and this article has been cleaned up by several editors before, mainly to include information from acceptable references as has been documented above. Very little of the article has been edited (at least by me) for writing style. Any Wikipedia article can be as long or short as the editors wish so you don't have to worry about being "concise" just accurate please.Awotter (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

References are mostly autobiographical
I can't believe the number of claims in this article that are backed up by Larry's liner notes, web site, and promotional material. Are there any neutral third-party sources to verify the claims. Has Dylan gone on record to indicate that Larry was an influence? What about Cash or others that were mentioned (until I deleted them). The claims that Dylan's gospel albums were stylistically similar to Norman's is absolutely unsustainable and incorrect. I would like some of the editors to stop relying on Larry's own claims and find other sources or delete the material altogether. This article is becoming laughable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Formatting
Please do not remove the blockquotes from the article again. They were placed per MOS and are used throughout the article to give it a formatted consistency '' A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Block quotes are not enclosed in quotation marks (especially including decorative ones such as those provided by the template, used only for pull quotes). Block quotes can be enclosed between a pair of "..." HTML tags, or or  can be used. ''Awotter (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Phrase used in article is from a main reference.
"THE JESUS PEOPLE, also known as Street Christians or Jesus Freaks, are the most visible; it is they who have blended the counterculture and conservative religion. Many trace their beginnings to the 1967 flower era in San Francisco, but there were almost simultaneous stirrings in other areas. Some, but by no means all, affect the hippie style; others have forsworn it as part of their new lives."

And from the Wikipedia lead article on the Jesus movement:

"The Jesus movement was the major Christian element within the hippie counterculture, or, conversely, the major hippie element within some strands of Protestantism. Members of the movement were called Jesus people, or Jesus freaks." Awotter (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate links
Commercial links that do not meet content guidelines will be removed as has been repeatedly noted here. Editors are free to find appropriate links that contain acceptable references. fallenangel.com does not meet those requirements but a news article (not a blog or self published site)about the documentary and/or specific information in it would.Awotter (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The documentary web site is not commercial, it's a link to the only place to get the documentary. Editors are free to leave it alone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing further. I have not visited the documentary website in a while so I went to verify Awotter's complaint fully prepared to delete it if it was simply a commercial link as was suggested. As of now, the site contains many sections including a news area, area about the film itself, a gallery, information about the soundtrack, information about the production company, a press section, a FAQ, contact information, and a store. Larry's official web site also has a link to a webstore. If the documentary site is considered commercial because it has a link to a store, then Larry's official site falls into the same category and should be deleted. I think the editor should come clean and explain the real reason why this link is being repeatedly removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One final thing, Larry's entire site is self-published. It will be removed if the documentary site is removed, and until Awotter comes up with a consistent reason for removing it. First, it's removed because it's commercial. Then it's removed because it's self-published. Give me a break. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fighting spam links is a very important job if we are to avoid having hundreds of arguably relevant links in every article; have a look at the current reports on WT:WikiProject Spam for examples. The link in question has been repeatedly added by 122.148.183.31 (who is an SPA), and I think that is the main reason for Awotter's concern. The number one spam indicator is repeated addition, and putting the link first, so I think that's a fair concern. However, linksearch shows the site is only on this page, and you say it is useful, so it should stay, but there is no reason for it to be first. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree that SPAM must be prevented. The documentary site is not SPAM. The reason it is being repeatedly added is that it is being repeatedly deleted. It is being repeatedly deleted because the documentary is not flattering to the subject of the article. The reason it is first is that the way it is currently written, it is alphabetically first. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Most folks edit from good faith, a minority don't. Please keep that in mind when you start hinting at POV issues by other editors There are policies and guidelines about reliable sources' of information on Wikipedia for good reason. As I said before, you or anyone else is welcome to link to ANY information pro/con/or indifferent about any subject, whenever and wherever they wish, within those guidelines. This is solely a commercial link that does not contribute specific and independently'' verifiable information to the article. If you want to add information from one of the news links you say the website contains then feel free to do so.


 * I cleaned up the structure and formatting of the article months ago and reworked the lead long before the documentary info started to be added and for the most part I have done very little editing of information that was in the main body of article prior to then or since that could even remotely be considered from an acceptable source. Those edits that I did do have solid sources and hopefully are as NPOV as I could get. The fact remains that after Norman died there were several attempts to add non verifiable material, mainly by anonymous IP's and the burden of proof is on them to meet guidelines.Awotter (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The documentary page is specific and independently verifiable information. Those who are interviewed can be contacted and asked if their information is correct or not. Larry's page, however, is the definition of a commercial link. I would argue that it does not contribute independently verifiable information. It is very non-neutral POV. I suspect I know who is making the edits. I will suggest that the editor get an account stop making anonymous edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any anonymous edits on this article for quite a long time. By the way, official sites are almost all non-NPOV, and are commonly used as External Links in Wikipedia articles. They aren't part of the article proper, I think, is why that's allowed.  Carlo (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked) "What should be linked: 1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first." Carlo (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discography
A lot of late, and unimportant, albums have made their way onto the discography. The Larry Norman discography contains all of the albums. I don't believe that there are any Wikipedia guidelines to keeping a list like this short. I think that listing 10% of his output is more than reasonable. I currently have the list at ten.
 * Upon This Rock (1969)
 * Only Visiting This Planet (1972)
 * So Long Ago the Garden (1973)
 * In Another Land (1976)
 * Something New under the Son (1981)
 * Stop This Flight (1985)
 * Live At Flevo (1989)
 * Stranded in Babylon (1991)
 * Copper Wires (1998)
 * Tourniquet (2001)

The Upon this Rock should be there because it was his first and was fairly ground-breaking. "The Trilogy" is well-known and according to CCM Magazine, and The Encyclopedia of CCM, it's important and influenced many musicians who came after. The latter point is also echoed in Jerry Bryant's Full Circle Jesus Music syndicated radio show/podcast. In many interview with Christian musicians, they say how one or another early Larry Norman album or song influenced their entry into CCM.

SNUTS was a well-produced album that was released just after he had released very little of quality for several years.

Stranded is considered to be his attempt to break back into CCM.

Just after Larry's death a discussion was started on the Yahoo! Groups Jesus Music discussion list. Someone said that Larry had released so many albums and he didn't know which recent albums to get. Copper Wires, and Tourniquet were considered by some to be the best of his later years.

The rest of tghe albums in the list are a concession to what had already existed.

Adding endless numbers of live recordings and compilations of reworked songs isn't really a representative discography. Also, the full discography still stands and wills serve to the serious fan. We should consider this list to be "what Larry albums should I absolutely have in my collection if I could only buy ten". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing I would like to add. An album's importance could also be implied by whether an article exists in Wikipedia or not. By that measure, there are currently only nine albums that should be listed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the first five on the list are certainties; I have no opinion about the other five. Carlo (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dylan
I find the statement about Dylan and Vineyard problematic. While technically true, it seems to imply something that might not be. It's true that Larry was involved with Vineyard, and Dylan attended Vineyard around the time of his conversion. But the implication is that Larry had something to do with his conversion, and I don't know of any evidence for that. I believe that the class Dylan attended was headed by Pastor Bill Dwyer. Carlo (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully concur. In a recent podcast by an early Vineyard Pastor and erstwhile DJ, Jerry Bryant, he comments that Bob was brought to a Vineyard fellowship by Dylan's girlfriend Mary Alice Artes. I suspect that this is the denomination's official line on Dylan's conversion. I believe the comments were made in Episode 100. The episodes are available at the podcast's web site. http://fullcirclejesusmusic.com/home.html I take it that Larry's story is an attempt at revising history to suit Larry, not the facts. The paragraph was written based on Larry's account, not Dylan's own. See the section above entitled References are mostly autobiographical.


 * Mark Alan Powell states in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music that both T Bone Burnett and Debby Boone were instrumental in Dylan's first steps in Christ around 1975. The most influential factors were Kenn Gulliksen's Malibu, California Calvary Chapel congregation, which would later form The Vineyard. Two pastors Larry Myers, and Paul Emond, were asked by Mary to visit Dylan. No date is given for this encounter. Dylan states that through those conversations "I had a born again experience, if you want to call it that" (page 279). The book also discusses his friendship with Keith Green, which is where Jerry was pastoring. So it comes full circle (sorry for the pun). Nowhere does it mention Larry's involvement with Dylan.


 * I don't even know if Larry lived near Malibu, or what his relationship to that Calvary Chapel. Larry's version is that it was part of a bible study that he hosted. This doesn't seem to correspond with Dylan's version.


 * I believe that the reference should be removed until a source other than Larry can be uncovered to verify the connection, but I'm willing to leave it for a while until the source can be found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent attempt to add citations
The following is taken from my talk page:
 * Hi Walter,
 * I note that we are ping ponging on the Emil Nikolaisen claim.
 * I don't know who wrote that Emil was majorly inspired by Garden, nor why they didn't cite any references.
 * What I was trying to do, because the entry had "citation needed" next to it was to show at least that Emil is a fan. I figured that gets us one step closer....
 * Would it not be better then if we changed the sentence, so that instead of majorly inspired, it just says that Emil is an admirer of larry's music? That can be cited.
 * I didn't rewrite it because I'm new to editing wiki pages, and wasn't sure if that would be the correct etiquette.
 * What happens with other false information that is there, say with a citation that is untrue or incomplete?
 * For example, the page says that Randy was dating Nancy. The cited reference only says that Randy's girlfriend was Larry's sister; no mention of names.
 * Now Nancy herself says that they never dated.
 * Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't rewrite it because I'm new to editing wiki pages, and wasn't sure if that would be the correct etiquette.
 * What happens with other false information that is there, say with a citation that is untrue or incomplete?
 * For example, the page says that Randy was dating Nancy. The cited reference only says that Randy's girlfriend was Larry's sister; no mention of names.
 * Now Nancy herself says that they never dated.
 * Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, the page says that Randy was dating Nancy. The cited reference only says that Randy's girlfriend was Larry's sister; no mention of names.
 * Now Nancy herself says that they never dated.
 * Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer here rather than on my talk page.

I don't know who wrote that sentence. It would be better to reduce the impact of any statement if it can't be supported. The statement is that Emil was influenced by SLTG. To suggest that he's a fan because he knows of the album is a leap as well. The article states that he likes the album. Does that make him a LN fan? Not necessarily. I like lots of albums without being a fan of the band. I'm not sure how the Norwegian verb liker can be used in context and perhaps a bilingual editor can add additional information. The fact the Eric isn't well-known either doesn't really help make the case.

As for false information, it should be removed or at least challenged. Larry had two sisters so if Nancy didn't date Randy, perhaps it was the other sister. I don't have any sources close-at-hand so I can't verify the claim. In this case, changing the statement makes the most sense. If you remove too much false information (as I did when I researched the Dylan claim) you may have a very short article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine Walter, I understand what you are saying. I agree that the sentence about Emil should be reduced in impact. In actual fact, I spent two or three days in Emil's company last year, and he is most definitely a fan. He also took part in Larry tribute concerts, including the two 'official' ones with Charles and Kristin. I realise however that I'm just a single source reference and can't really cite myself about the fan aspect. That said, the tribute concert part is easily verifiable through google.

Nancy didn't date Randy, and I'm equally sure that Kristy didn't either. I suppose I am here again a single source reference, contradicting a journalistic article, but I did confirm this with Nancy herself. -- Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that you should say contradicting a journalistic article since I believe that the reference is from Larry himself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that Larry wrote that Randy wanted to date his sister, who introduced them. I'll find the reference before changing anything, but Nancy confirms that neither she nor her sister were ever Randy's girlfriend, but that she did introduce him to Larry. The cited article was written by Linda Dailey Paulson, with no indication of any information coming from Larry. (That's not to say it didn't of course). All I meant by 'contradicting a journalistic article' is that the cited article is in print on the web authored by someone who appears to be a jounalist, whereas I'm just one guy who talked to Nancy, and so can only cite my own private conversation. And of course, I could be anyone really, just making stuff up.... --Whokilledduncan (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your comments a fortnight ago, and sympathised with your dilemma,. You believe you have better info because of personal knowledge or a private discussion with Nancy. As you indicate, there are several problems with your "superior knowledge" (my words): 1. It is unverifiable 2. it is not published in a reputable source. It is definitely POV. Further, you indicated you would find a better source before you changed the article. That seemed fair. However, you did not provide such substantiation behind your version of a private conversation. Further, what you or Nancy believe about whether Kristy dated Randy or not is hearsay and therefore inadmissible. So, we are left with a claim: Randy dated LN's sister. He has 2 sisters. Either it was Nancy or Kristy. That's the claim. Now, the claim may be either true or false. Only two people kbnow for sure: Randy and the unidentified sister of LN. Playing devil's advocate, It could be that Nancy did date Randy, and has changed her story after more than 40 years. It could be that Randy claimed at the time he was dating LN's sister. It could be that LN believed it to be true, but was mistaken. Now, if Randy was 16 when he met LN, and Nancy married in 1969, and was probably dating her to-be husband, then Kristy is most likely the subject of the claim. (smjwalsh (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Finally, with the claim that LN and Pamela divorced, there are conflicting claims: LN's and Pamela's. The article clearly presents both claims, and allows the reader to realise there are conflicting claims, and indicates that the claims are "according to" the claimants without attempting to establish the veracity of the claims.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Thanks. Once again we are shown what happens when someone introduces statements that contradict Larry's self-published words. With that said, Wikipedia needs verifiable sources and that wins out here. Published comments, whether self-published or not win on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the article reflects the complexities, contradictions and controversies in LN's own life. For most people their own claims are often the best source, but even with non-controversial folk, there needs to be a hermeneutic of suspicion. This is especially true with LN. Just because he may have embellished his own achievements (or others did/do on his behalf), or perhaps he had his own perspective on situations, does not mean we automatically discount his claims. The appropriate course of action is to accurately present or describe his claims, and then present contrasting materials with good sources, then allow readers to determine on the basis of probability what to believe. The claims (true or otherwise) are notable and therefore need to be included. Larry's self-published comments (whether from his own website or linear notes etc), or those unfurled in interviews are reasonable to include, whether they ultimately are proven to be true or otherwise, or even unprovable. What is needed is a good, scholarly book on LN that includes documentary sources and interviews with the key people. The silence of his friends and family no doubt allows distortions to continue. If Nancy, Kristy, Charly, Joe Norman, etc were forthcoming with journalists, authors, etc, or if they posted their corrections online, then they could be quoted. BTW, I agree with Walter's opinion that Di Sabatino's material needs to be included, although it too must be critiqued as those he interviewed also have their own perspective. Selection of material can often shape the impression created. What is omitted is often critical. The silence of LN's supporters allows Di SAbatino's material to be presented without challenge. I'm sure Di Sabatino would have liked to include responses to allegations, even if only to increase box office/sales.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Re Randy dating Larry's sister; OK, so Nancy says that both she and Kristy never dated him. Even if Kristy herself says this also, we have one publicly unverifiable source (my conversations) conflicting the cited article. Stalemate. By the way, where does LN say his sister dated Randy? I can find no such source.
 * Did some more research. Randy claims he was dating LN's sister. This ups the ante considerably.

"DOOR: When did you meet Larry Norman? STONEHILL: I met Larry, who was also a San Jose boy, when I started dating his sister, after meeting her at a high school "Hootenanny." We used to have folk concerts called "Hootenannies" back in the sixties. So she introduced me to Larry, who invited me to Los Angeles, when I graduated from High School."(Source: Bob Gersztyn, "The Wittenburg Door Interview: Randy Stonehill", (December 2005), http://archives.wittenburgdoor.com/archives/stonehill.html. Now, of course, Randy could be lying or mistaken, but this is a first person source from a verifiable published source. I will be interested to hear what Nancy has to say. (smjwalsh (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)).
 * Obviously (based on change to pixilated sisters website), Nancy still does believe a sister of LN dated Randy Stonehill. However, Randy (a primary participant) makes the claim. Obviously, Randy is in a better position to know than Nancy, you or me. Only 2 people know whether the claim is true or not. I know no conceivable reason Randy would lie. There is a degree of specificity that is also compelling. Consequently, the claim stands for now.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Re Larry claiming that Pamela initiated divorce proceedings; Nowhere in Brian Quincy Newcomb's article is Larry quoted as saying "Pamela initiated divorce proceedings". He is only quoted as saying "My wife had decided she wanted to marry somebody else." This is not the same as Larry claiming the divorce was initiated by Pamela - words are being put into his mouth in the article.
 * There are other articles cited regarding LN's perceptions re the divorce. Eg: "When the divorce finally came, it was no overnight surprise. I know that I'm not the cause for the problems she had before we met and I realize that I had the proper biblical grounds for divorce and all that, but it doesn't make the death of my relationship with her any less of a tragedy. Any less painful. It takes two people to get married, but it only takes one person to get a divorce. And it takes a long time to get over something like this." (Source: Steve Goddard and Roger Green, "The Tape Keeps Rolling", Buzz Magazine (May 1981), http://www.swcs.com.au/LNBuzz81.htm) Also: Larry Norman: "But in 1978 my marriage ended and then became legally over by 1980 and I began to come back to life because I didn't have such a destructive home life any more. . . . After a few years having men friends I told her that I thought our marriage was dead but that I didn't want to get a divorce." (Source: "on being interview 1985 - 1986", http://www.dagsrule.com/stuff/larry/intvw856.html)

LN indicates the divorce was Pamela's fault. Pamela indicates Larry was unfaithful. Each claim the other initiated the divorce. The WP article clearly summarises the situation with verifiable sources. The only way to actually resolve the issue is to see the divorce application. (smjwalsh (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)).
 * I am not disputing that Larry blamed the break up of their marriage on Pamela, and vice versa. (Although in Fallen Angel, Pamela does not actually say that Larry was unfaithful). What I am disputing is the statement that Larry claimed that "Pamela initiated divorce proceedings". In none of the quoted articles does Larry say that Pamela served divorce papers on him. (I'm assuming that is what "initiated divorce proceedings" means). He only says that her behaviour led to their eventual divorce. If what is desired for the Wikipedia article is just to know who served divorce papers then I can confirm that it was Larry. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. The articles cited do not explicity state that Larry (or Pamela) initiated the divorce proceedings. What they do indicate (among other things) is that from LN's perspective, that one person got the divorce, LN did not want to get a divorce, the divorce came (to him) (suggesting he was not the one who initiated the action), that he was not surprised, but that he did not welcome it. However, in the absence of an explicit verifiable statement of who initiated proceedings, a re-write is in order.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)).
 * Re Cristabell; This was "apparently" a nickname. Verifiable source please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whokilledduncan (talk • contribs) 08:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See website of LN's sisters: http://www.pixilatedsisters.com/AboutUs.html This is in LN article.(smjwalsh (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)).
 * So the pixilated sisters website is the source of the name Cristabell? It would assist then to know that Nancy used a made up name because her sister didn't want her real name there. Visit that page again, and hit refresh if necessary. Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO the Cristabell issue is a storm in a teacup. The article was factually true, but the info given is minor or even inconsequiential. Consequently, I'm more than happy to remove the nom-de-'net names.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)).

Discussion re inaccuracies in article
What a miracle: According to this article, Larry was born in 1947 - he "began recording in 1968 (21 years later) at the age of 19." ± —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.228.247 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying an obvious error. Best to sign your comments and put them at the bottom of the page so they can be seen.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)).

The article currently says that "In early 2008 Larry Norman recorded his two last songs (Back To The Dust and Walking Backwards) with the German Christian singer/songwriter Sarah Brendel for her record "Early Morning hours". This is not correct, on at least two counts: Larry was in hospital in for most of the two months in 2008 before his passing. The European tour during which he recorded with Sarah was in May/June of 2007. Further, Larry recorded with the Crosstones (on a song titled Ya Gotta Be Saved) in July or August 2007, which was made available on download sites a few months ago.Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. So fix it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed the wording around Sarah Brendel a little to correct the dates, and also to reflect the fact that the two songs Larry recorded with her were not his very last recordings. Whokilledduncan (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states "Nancy Norman-Overmeyer ... and Kristy Norman, who have said of their brother Larry: "We are not his sisters. He's our brother.". It is presumptuous to say the least of who ever submitted the words "who have said of their brother Larry", because no one ever attributed the quote as being about Larry. It was presented merely as a favourite quote. Also, the link item 15 no longer supports this entry anyway. I know this is a small matter, but I believe the quote should be removed for at least two reasons. a) It is not actually true, or at least unverifiable, and b) It is basically irrelevant to the subject matter of the article. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Make it so! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Made so! Whokilledduncan (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Cannell Finch Stonehill - Where does the name Cannell come from? My understanding is that this isn't a family name at all, but the name of Sarah's father's company, or something along those lines. Further, is it normal practice in America to quote a person's former marital name? The first sentence under the heading makes it clear that was was previously married to Randy. Isn't it then somewhat redundant to give her the surname Stonehill in the heading? Whokilledduncan (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says, in the Randy Stonehill section: "This marriage caused an estrangement between Norman and Sarah's ex-husband, Randy Stonehill, who was one of Norman's best friends and collaborators. Norman had met Stonehill in 1967,[88] when Stonehill was dating Norman's sister, Nancy.[89][90]" - I don't understand how Larry's marriage to Sarah can be considered as having caused this estrangement. The estrangement began in 1980, and this marriage wan't until 1982 or 1984, depending on which source is correct, and in any case, Randy had already remarried sometime earlier. Secondly, we previously agreed that Nancy shouldn't be named as having dated Randy. Firstly, because she says she never did. And secondly, none of the cited sources say anything more than "sister". Whokilledduncan (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed on both counts. The problem I have had with keeping up with the edits is that there have been so many and I haven't had a chance to review them all. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed specific reference to Nancy as per previous discussion. If one believes Di Sabatino's film, Norman's marriage to Finch may have confirmed suspicions/rumours of a prior affair between Norman and Finch. Let me see what can be documented. The estrangement comment has been there for quite some time. Financial arrangements at Solid Rock also seems to have been a factor in the estrangement.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)).

The article states "Upon leaving home in the mid-1960s, he moved to San Jose, California". This is not quite correct. The whole family moved to DeTracey St in San Jose in 1960 when Larry was 13. Larry moved out of the family home (but still in San Jose) after he graduated in 1965. Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * citation for either? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, but still need citations.(smjwalsh (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)).

The article states that Larry graduated from Leigh High School. This is not correct. Larry graduated from Campbell High School. http://namesdatabase.com/schools/US/CA/Campbell/Campbell%20High%20School (Look under 1965). Further, Larry never attended the same school that his father taught at. (Source Nancy Jo Norman). I assume that the source/s you have found yourself for when the family moved to San Jose, and when Larry left home are sufficient, and that I don't need to find any more? Whokilledduncan (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. As indicated in the footnotes to the Leigh High section, one of his neighbours indicates LN attended Campbell, but it was Solid Rock contemporaries Daniel Amos who indicate it was Leigh High, the same as Randy Stonehill. I will change it to read Campbell High, but would prefer a better source than http://namesdatabase.com/schools/US/CA/Campbell/Campbell%20High%20School. I have discovered how easy it is to submit false information. See http://www.classmates.com/profile/user/my?ns=rfeed&activityType=WH_NM. However, as the information was supposedly supplied by Michael Finch-Norman, and refers to LN's mother, it may be legit.(smjwalsh (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)).

The article states "Norman's account of the marriage is disputed in David Di Sabatino's documentary Fallen Angel, in which Pamela claims that it was Larry that committed the adultery on numerous occasions". This is not true. In the film Pamela doesn't even say Larry committed adultery once, never mind multiple times. Whokilledduncan (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the first revision of the film it is never mentioned. I was surprised that it wasn't mentioned. Have not seen either of the next two revisions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

At 23.09 on May 13th, a revision was undone in the Fallen Angel section, with the following reasoning given: "DDS won lawsuit - fairplay use allowed." The sentence in question was talking about Frisbee, not Fallen Angel, and therefore any reference to DDS winning a lawsuit, and to fair use is incorrect. EMI and Larry refused permission for Larry's music to be used in Frisbee, and the soundtrack was changed. Was there even any legal action? As regards Fallen Angel itself, the Norman estate issued a cease and desist order with respect to copyright abuse. David then sued them, but they eventually settled out of court. This is discussed in some detail on the DDS page of Failed Angle. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. More than that, I agree with it. If you look at the previous revision (Revision as of 09:05, 14 May 2010) you can see that the an anonymous editor inserted unsubstantiated and inaccurate material in the Failed Angle section that should have been placed rather in the Fallen Angel section. The reference to the lawsuit was in connection with Fallen Angel, was changed to a neutral description, and then shifted to the Fallen Angel section. I understand with the number of edits on this article (mea culpa) that it is hard to follow the edit trail. I think the section here is accurate and balanced, but am always willing to amend inaccurate or ambiguous material.(smjwalsh (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Sorry, I perhaps wasn't clear enough on my point. I have no issue with the removal of the anonymous editor's text (216.164.183.33). (Although I don't think it was inaccurate actually. Note though that it always was under Fallen Angel, never under Failed Angle). I was focussing more on the sentence containing the words "legal action". The reason given, presumably for removing the word "unsuccessful" which was inserted prior to the words "legal action" was "DDS won lawsuit - fairplay use allowed." The sentence in question was in the Fallen Angel section. It still is. But it wasn't, and still isn't referring to Fallen Angel. It was, and still is referring to Frisbee. The change related to Frisbee, but the reason given for the change relates to Fallen Angel, and therefore is incorrect.
 * I follow your argument. So, how would you change it?(smjwalsh (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Well, I don't know that there was any legal action as regards Frisbee. What is clear is that both Larry and EMI refused permission for use of Larry's music. I'd suggest that reference to legal action is removed. Whokilledduncan (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * The Fallen Angel section currently reads "Fallen Angel: The Outlaw Larry Norman: A Bible Story is a controversial 2008 documentary on Norman's life by film producer David Di Sabatino, maker of a previous documentary on Lonnie Frisbee. Originally Frisbee included many of Norman's songs, but a failure to agree on the terms of their use resulted in Norman withdrawing his cooperation, and legal action by Di Sabatino. Norman refused to cooperate also in the making of Fallen Angel, as did many of his friends........" The part about legal action is in a sentence referring solely to Frisbee, and this is where the anonymous editor added the word "unsuccessful". Firstly, if there was legal action brought about by David at all, then it was indeed unsuccessful. EMI in the the end prevented the use of Larry's music in Frisbee, and the soundtrack was changed. Secondly, did David commence legal action at all? Did he simply petition EMI and get turned down? Or did EMI simply issue a cease and desist order at Larry's request? Indeed, according to David himself (refer to the OC Weekly "but nothing prepared him for Larry Norman" interview/article) his petition to EMI was turned down.
 * Obviously more work needs to be done on this sentence. My recollection (of research) is that evidently DS could have used portions of LN's music under fair use provisions. I'm more than happy to delete "and legal action by Di Sabatino". What is the consensus?(smjwalsh (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * The fair use argument only comes into play with Fallen Angel. David didn't use such an argument with regard to Frisbee. I think (as already stated) the reference to legal action (re Frisbee) should be removed. I think the description of the wrangling behind Fallen Angel is fine. Whokilledduncan (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * As for the text relating to Fallen Angel itself, it says "as did many of his friends" (refuse to cooperate in the film). How do you know that? How many, and who were asked to take part, and refused? The closest thing I'm aware of to a source for that is the same OC Weekly article; "Norman then set his sights on derailing Di Sabatino’s next project, the filmmaker claims, first by refusing to go on camera—interviews with the musician in the film came from archival footage—then by telling those closest to him to stay away from Di Sabatino...". This I would suggest is a very weak source in relation to any claim that Larry's friends refused to take part.
 * The phrase "as did many of his friends" is not mine. Failed angle makes the point that only Charles Norman was asked to take part. Therefore, if they were not asked, they could not have refused. I agree with your point. Better sources are needed for both claim and counter claim.(smjwalsh (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Where does Failed Angle say that only Charles was asked to take part in the film? Whokilledduncan (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to locate where I read that. It may be in a comment posted in response to one of the reviews of Fallen Angel. (smjwalsh (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Allen Flemming indicated that Charles was the only Norman invited to take part (http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Larry_Norman_The_David_Di_Sabatinos_Fallen_Angel_documentary/39066/p1/), but the Wiki article talks about "many" of Larry's friends, not his family. Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not having any difficulty following your edits, the vast majority of which I believe to be correct and balanced. Of course it would have been better if I had brought this point up closer to the time, but I was ill much of last week. Whokilledduncan (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you're feeling better now.(smjwalsh (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, I am. Thanks! Whokilledduncan (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has a footnote saying "This is probably his "You Gotta Quit Kickin' My Dog Around", performed at what was then expected to be his final concert on 18 October 2003 at Beaverton, Oregon". For information, this song was performed at several concerts years prior to Beaverton. More importantly, this is actually a traditional / folk song, so isn't Larry's song at all other than any lyrics he might have made up himself. Whokilledduncan (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Apparently it dates back to much earlier. See [] and . I will amend the article accordingly.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

The article currently says: "Another album recorded in 1976 that was rejected by Word Records was Streams of White Light Into Darkened Corners....and was not released until several years later by AB Records". The album was released in 1977 which is not several years after 1976, so the sentence doesn't really make sense. Whilst there are conflicting sources, I would suggest that the album was more likely recorded in 1974, as heavily implied by Larry's write up on the rear album sleeve. http://www.meetjesushere.com/images/LPs/AB777b.jpg Whokilledduncan (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In the footnotes, the year of the Finale DVD release is marked as "2009?". It was released in November of 2008. Whokilledduncan (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now, where can we find a source?(smjwalsh (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * There is the e-mail notification which Solid Rock sent to the mailing list on 26 November 2008. And there is the copyright 2008 text on the rear of the cover. Does such a point require a source? I thought sources were only required for text that might be considered contentious? Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says "However, as no US Christian radio hit transpired, in 1989 Norman returned to Europe and signed a recording deal with Spark Music, a small Dutch indie label." The cited article says "But no US Christian radio hit transpired and soon Larry was off on his European travels again, signing a deal with small Dutch indie Spark Music." - I see three potential issues with the wiki text. First the test suggests that either Larry quit Benson because they couldn't deliver a hit, or that Benson dropped him because no hit transpired. The source article (it hadn't reached the interview part yet) merely points out that there was no hit. (Actually, didn't Somewhere Out There chart?). Second, was the Spark deal a recording one or just a distribution deal? The source does not define. Third, the words "returned to Europe" could be interpreted as meaning that Larry relocated to Europe to live. Is that really the case, or was he just touring? Whokilledduncan (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Let me try to answer your three points:

1. I do not know when/how/why LN left Benson. Any help with sources regarding charting would be useful.
 * Page 637 of Mark Allan Powell's encyclopedia says "...and provided Norman with his first and only official Christian radio hit. "Somewhere Out There"...is about..."". Then on page 641 it says that Somewhere Out There charted at number 12 in 1989. Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

2. The text re Spark was in the WP article before I started editing recently. Perhaps a look at the relevant album covers might be helpful.
 * I'm not sure that would identify the type of contract. There are also Solid Rock versions of most if not all of the Spark releases. The Spark version of Copper Wires for example was "manufactured and distributed in Europe by GMI...". But it was recorded and mastered in Salem, and the booklet indicates "Published by Ordure Blanc / Universal". Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the albums indicate produced by XX, distributed by YY.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)).

3. What we know is that he went to Europe. Let me look into what happened next. From what I read, it would seem a short-term situation.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

The section of the article describing the Russian poisoning is inaccurate. It took place in 1988, not 1989. And Larry and Charles were in Leningrad and Tallin, not Moscow. Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not worked on that particular episode yet. Now that you mention it, I will add it to my "to do" list.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

The article currently says that the booklet for Footprints In The Sand contains a description of what happened at the end of the eighties. Surely it should read start of the eighties, or end of the seventies. Also, what does the linked source provide, other than a picture of the artwork? Whokilledduncan (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The requested changes have been made and references changed.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC))

The article currently says "Soon after Norman sold his interest in Street Level Artists Agency to Holly Benyousky, then a part-time secretary at SLAA, who as of May 2010 is still a partner. Norman continued to be represented by Street Level." - The cited source does not say that Larry sold anything, nor that he continued to be represented by SLAA. Are there any sources to support either of these points? Whokilledduncan (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me search for better sources. Certainly there was a transfer of ownership from LN to HB, but then it could have been given to her or sold for a notional amount by LN. As to LN being represented by SLAA, I have modified it to say: "Initially Norman continued to be represented by Street Level". It is a placeholder statement for the time being until I document what I'm sure I read. I'm not committed to the statement, and will be happy to delete it. Of course, at that time LN moved to England and was in Europe until 1984 at least, so it is doubtful if SRAA booked LN much (if at all). Perhaps I saw LN's name on a SRAA roster of artists post-1980?(smjwalsh (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

The article currently indicates that Bootleg and Street Level are both double albums. This is not true of Street Level. It also indicates that Down Under is a double album, which I don't think is an issue really, but I would point out that most versions (Royal Music LP, On Being cassette, all CD releases) are not double. Only the Phydeaux LP and arguably the extended edition cassette are actually double albums. Whokilledduncan (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me correct this.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

The article currently indicates that Tom Nunes played at the Beaverton concert in 2003. This is not the case. Whilst Tom was advertised as playing beforehand, in the end he did not perform. Whokilledduncan (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me correct this.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

The article still says that "many of his friends" refused to be part of Fallen Angel. As discussed previously, what sources are there for this assertion? Whokilledduncan (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me rewrite this. From what I remember reading, only Charly Norman and Sarah were approached and both refused..(smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

The article currently indicates that the songs Give It Up and Everybody Work on the CD Liberator were previously unreleased. This is not true. Both songs (same versions) were originally on the Face To Face video. Give It Up (a studio version) was also on the Royal Music version of Down Under. Everybody Work was originally on a 12" single released about the same time as Stop This Flight. What is true is that this version of Give It Up got it's first release on CD on Liberator. This version of Everybody Work first appeared on CD on Sticks & Stones. Whokilledduncan (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will change the article accordingly.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)).

As highlighted by someone else, the article currently indicates that Larry was 19 years old in 1968, which is not true. Whokilledduncan (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw the comment. It was perhaps a hold over from a very early version of the article. Since corrected.(smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)).
 * With so many changes made, one hopes that either you missed other errors or that there is a high % accuracy :)(smjwalsh (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)).

www.failedangle.com
I added the "controversial" with reference to the failed angle site. I've noticed that two additions recently in the body of the article, also relating to the site, have been removed on the grounds of link does not meet WP:ELNO as a fan site. I don't agree with this assessment:

Although it is a site written by a fan (who, I understand, is the official biographer of Larry Norman), it is well researched and well documented, so on those grounds I do not consider it to be a "fan site". It does not, in my opinion, meet the definition of fansite. It is there for a specific purpose - to refute the allegations made by Mr Sabatino, with verifiable evidence.

There is a second question, even for those who agree with my previous statement, and that is whether it fits into the article at all. I think that there does need to be some reference (hence my addition), but I have to say I'm in two minds as to whether the changes proposed by the other edits, fit within the context. If it does, them something like:

The reliability and neutrality of the documentary was brought into question in April 2010, with the publication of Failed angle using documents from Larry Norman's archive. would seem appropriate. Obviously, if that was put in, my reference should be removed.

Maybe also a link would be appropriate in the external links section? Matthewdjb (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be well-researched, but the forums are not open. The research is also not available and as such is hearsay. There is a reference to the site indicating that the documentary is controversial. Again, according to WP:ELNO External links are not required in a well-written article. Also, the creator of that site does not currently meet WP:SPS, but if that book is ever published, could be. Once again, the issue is around getting all the information from a single source: Larry. This is a problem that this article already suffers from. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "the forums are not open". If you could clarify that, I'd be grateful. Regarding your concerns about WP:SPS. I was concerned about that, but careful reading of the criteria suggests to me that the concerns would be valid if there was information about Larry Norman in the body of the article, that was being supported by reference to the site. But I don't think it applies when refering readers to the existence of the site as a counterpoint to the claims of the documentary. It seems to me that if failedangle.com fails for the reasons cited, then "Fallen Angel" must also fall, for precisely the same reason! (Obviously I don't think the documentary section should be removed!) Matthewdjb (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The forums are not open = to post a comment, it must be emailed to the site's owner. The fact that the site is a reference to the controversy should be sufficient. The documentary, however, is the only source of first-hand commentary about problems that Larry had and was unwilling to deal with. Yes, the documentary has problems, but none of those problems are around content but around production value. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I'm just one editor. I'm trying to apply the Wikipedia rules as I understand them. That understanding may be flawed, just as I perceive that the rules are flawed. I would like to get input from other editors as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Matthewdjb that the Failed Angle website doesn't fall into the category of fansite. To quote Wikipedia rules: "Fansites may offer specialized information on the subject (e.g., episode listings, biographies, storyline plots), pictures taken from various sources, the latest news related to their subject, media downloads, links to other, similar fansites and the chance to talk to other fans via discussion boards. They often take the form of a blog, highlighting the latest news regarding the fansite subject. They often include galleries of photos and/or videos of the subject, and are often "affiliates" with other fansites." Failed Angle doesn't cover any of these scenarios at all, with the arguable exception of offering specialised information. The same set of Wikipedia rules also indicate that linking to forums etc is to be avoided, so I don't understand how Failed Angle missing an open forum comes into play. Even if the lack of open forum were an issue, the same could be said of Fallen Angel, and most of the other links within the article. [Note that in any case Failed Angle does link to a Facebook page, which absolutely provides an open forum].


 * The research contained within Failed Angle is verifiable to my mind. It is there in black and white, and in audio. Anything that might have been left out or edited is no less verifiable than the same for Fallen Angel, or indeed for any interview or article surely. We already know that Pamela regards the film's edit as not reflecting the whole story, at least with respect to herself. I would further propose that the information within Failed Angle does not to a large extent come from Larry as a single source at all. Included are e-mails, letters and quoted interviews not only written by and relating to others, but in many cases after Larry's passing.


 * If the documentary is the only source of "first-hand commentary about problems that Larry had" then Failed Angle is the only first-hand source to respond to the claims made, thereby providing a more balanced and fuller picture. Thinking on this point further convinces me that the website does not fall into the category of fansite, because it exists almost solely to specifically respond to specific claims made by the movie, and it does so with actual evidence. Given that Failed Angle does contain evidence refuting some of the claims in the movie, then I don't understand how Fallen Angel's flaws can be deemed as not relating to content.


 * smjwalsh previously wrote, regarding Pamela and Larry's divorce that "there are conflicting claims: LN's and Pamela's. The article clearly presents both claims, and allows the reader to realise there are conflicting claims, and indicates that the claims are "according to" the claimants without attempting to establish the veracity of the claims". I cannot see why this situation is any different. Fallen Angel makes some claims. Failed Angle makes some conflicting claims. If both are not given equal weight within the article (another Wiki rule) then I think we have a problem. As such, I think the sentence above that Mathewdjb suggested would adequately cover all bases. Whokilledduncan (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it merit its own paragraph though? I have no problems as a source, but the two reverts I made are a commentary on the site, not on anything related to Larry, if I recall correctly. Again, as a reference, it's fine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I do think it deserves at least to be included within the documentary section text, perhaps not as a stand alone paragraph, but as a following sentence clearly identifying the "conflicting claims". Expanding on what I said earlier, I think it's important under WP:NPOV. Plus, I don't believe it is any less valid as regards self published reasons than the documentary is. Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Craft a sentence and insert it as you see fit. If it's too promotional, as the last to were, I will revert it as per WP:SPAM or WP:ELNO. I trust your judgment though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I've done that. If anyone thinks it is not enough - or too much - lets continue discussing. :-) Matthewdjb (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I would have left the adjective in though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I put the adjective back in. I agree with you. It just seems to read better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdjb (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic
Let's stay on-topic please. the recent addition of Randy's marital breakdown has nothing to do with Larry or the events around Larry's marital problems. It would be like saying: "The Beatles were a band who formed in Liverpool, England. Liverpool is a city and metropolitan borough of Merseyside, England, along the eastern side of the Mersey Estuary. It was founded as a borough in 1207 and was granted city status in 1880. Liverpool is the fourth largest city in the United Kingdom and has a population of 435,500, and lies at the centre of the wider Liverpool Urban Area, which has a population of 816,216.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing further, I think I understand why the phrase "Stonehill had, prior to Larry's marriage to Sarah, subsequently married his second wife, Sandi." is included, but it doesn't really explain anything the way it's written. It's assumed that this places Larry in a good light since Randy made it to the altar before Larry that he was likely involved in this relationship before Larry was. However, it could also mean that Larry was reticent to commit to a new relationship, or that he was too busy, or that he was guilted into the marriage--which I'll remind you ended quite early. I'm considering removing it because it doesn't add to an understanding of the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

More on the Stonehill section. It's great to see more of Larry's view of what happened. However, ll of the documents again relate to Larry's own view. It's interesting how Larry claims in a letter that he was invited to the wedding, but the invitation is not present in the archives. This leads Larry's biographer to conclude this started the rift. According to all who were interviewed on the subject in Failed Angel indicate that Larry and Pamela were already involved in a relationship by this time. They could not prove a romantic relationship, but it the accusations of infidelity were already there before the divorce. I added those allegations into the section since it needed to be added. I'm sorry I didn't add a comment. It would be good to see what the divorce papers state as the reason for the Stonehill's divorce. The way the section read, it makes it appear that Randy and Sandi were involved prior to the separation of the first Stonehills'. I had been trying to play catch-up with user:Smjwalsh's edits and was falling behind. I wanted to get the edits in quickly to avoid further conflicts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments (and Barn Star award). Of course the Failed Angle material is carefully selected, but they are primary documents, often contemporaneously written, and so good sources for the LN WP article. As to the absence of the wedding invitation, or other materials that might cast Norman in a more negative light, the website indicates that what is there is a portion of Norman's archival material, and that more will be posted in future. Hopefully, his biographer will fairly use all the source material (both held by LN and anything that might be available with a contrasting viewpoint). The non-cooperation of Norman's family and friends has no doubt contributed to any distortion that might be in the Fallen Angel documentary. The absence of Norman's perspective on various conflicts has distorted the situation. The one-sided apologia for Norman on Failed Angle helps to correct the imbalance.

As regards Norman and Sarah's relationship before the Stonehill divorce, only LN and Sarah know. While there are suspicions and allegations, the presumption of innocence operates in WP (as it ought).(smjwalsh (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Amen. Not even Di Sabitino would come out and make a claim. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Confrontation or Intervention?
The text currently reads "The suspicions of Stonehill and other Solid Rock musicians led to an intervention organized by Philip Mangano". A confrontation is one-on-one. An intervention is when several people confront the person. I seem to recall from the documentary that Mangano confronted Larry directly and alone. I don't recall that any others were involved in the event. I don't have the DVD. Can anyone confirm? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a "business" meeting involving all or most of Solid Rock. In the movie, several people recall aspects of the meeting, in addition to Philip Mangano. "It was more or less an intervention" are words Mangano used in the movie when describing this meeting. By the way, Brad Durham is the only person in the movie who expresses suspicions that Larry and Sarah were behaving inappropriately (after she was already separated from Randy). No one else says this. Indeed, Randy's words actually indicate that he didn't suspect anything at all. Di Sabatino himself is now (after Failed Angle went live) saying publicly that nowhere in his movie does anyone say there was an affair. And he's right, it isn't actually said. I think in this respect, the article still doesn't quite accurately reflect the cited source when describing how this meeting came about. Whokilledduncan (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As usual, User:Smjwalsh is right and I am wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I have been often shown the errors of my ways and was happy to correct them or allow rthe corrections of others to stand.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).

David appears to have visited the article
There were a few anonymous edits last night. Based on their location I assume that they were from David Di Sabatino. I have heard and read these claims before so before we delete them, let's see if we can find some documented proof. He didn't cover them in his documentary nor are they written about in anything I've seen, but if he doesn't return to offer verifiable proof, by the weekend, and no one else can offer proof by then, we should remove them. Again, this is an unusual step, but I think it's warranted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards this time. Let's document first THEN include in the article. If LN was alive the material would be not allowed as WP has policies re biographies of living people. I have removed the following to facilitate restoration if documentation can be found:

"Daniel Robinson was named in Larry Norman's will where Larry denied that he was his son, but then went on to state that if he somehow proved paternity, he would still only get one percent of the estate.

In 1971 Larry Norman recorded a song entitled "Baby Out of Wedlock" which he later admitted to several people that it was autobiographical. Randy Stonehill has stated that when he first met Larry Norman in 1968, Larry was returning from taking care of a situation where he had fathered a child out of wedlock. Larry admitted to one of his Solid Rock artists that the aforementioned "baby out of wedlock" was Charles Norman.


 * Secondly, I have a strong aversion to anonymous editing. We should not reward someone who hits and runs. In a court of law, all of the deleted material would be regarded as hearsay and deemed inadmissible.(smjwalsh (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * {edit conflict} You are correct. This works too, and is probably better, although I'm not sure other editors will know to look here to edit information. My main concern is that people who do have documented proof, and at this point I don't think there is any as it seems to be private conversations and discussion list messages (neither of which meet WP:V), would not look here to add it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When the anonymous editor realises the edits have been removed, and reads the history for the rationale, and the encouragement to go to the Talk page, then it can be found. Other editors are free to add as they see fit. (smjwalsh (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Charles E Norman was born in March 1965, when Larry was almost 18. The California Birth records indicate that his mother's maiden name was Stout, which accords with Margaret Norman's maiden name. If you believe LN was Charly's father, then I image you would believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC))
 * That's good hearsay. While birth records are legal, you don't point to it, nor are they impervious to falsification. The most a birth record can say is that someone was born, not under the what circumstances. Daniel Robinson's birth record does not indicate a father. I doubt that this can be attributed to immaculate conception. That record was incomplete to, in the words of the mother, protect the father. In the case of Charles' record, it wouldn't be the first time in the 1960s when the parents of the father who was responsible for an unplanned pregnancy took responsibility for the child. I'm just saying it's possible, and while it's not impossible for a child to be born more than decade after their next youngest sibling (I am a case in point--however my brother was only twelve at the time) it is highly irregular. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My point (not well made) is that the records point to Margaret Stout Norman being the mother of Charly Norman. While it is not unknown for there to be deception in the paternity of a child, maternity is harder to fake (especially if the child is born in the hospital). Additionally, the reference "in 1968, Larry was returning from taking care of a situation where he had fathered a child out of wedlock" is out of accord with the 1965 birthdate. There is a 3 year gap between Charly's birth and LN's alleged trip in 1968 to take care of the matter. Thirdly, if the song "Baby out of Wedlock" is autobiographical, then when was LN imprisoned? See "I spent a little time in prison". While it is possible that Larry "took a lot of LSD, [and] smoked a lot of marja-weenie", there are no claims that this also was autobiographical. It seems that LN wrote many sangs that were used in earlier rock musicals or theatre pieces and that the words are those of a character. Finally, the claims relating to the will could be substantiated by quoting from the will. Are wills public records in USA?(smjwalsh (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC))
 * As a Canadian I don't know about the legal nature of wills in the US. Since they have never been presented in the discussion lists, I suspect that they're not publicly accessible.
 * In all songs, there could be any amount of autobiographical information and hyperbole. I have heard Larry speak about writing songs like that to identify with the people on Haight Street, and I tend to believe it. I would very much like to know whether any part of that song is autobiographical, but I suspect it's all just speculation.
 * The dates around Charlie's birth are a bit more confusing, but again, I tend to believe that he is Larry's brother, particularly with my brother's and my age difference a major consideration. With that said, if we dismiss them without investigating them more fully, it does a disservice to the truth. If we delete them without discussing them, it simply gives grounds for a conspiracy to those would like it that way. Buy discussing it, we should hopefully be able to throw some water on the fire on both camps. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In Australia wills need to be probated, making them a public record. The anonymous editor is indicating material that would be in the will. To speak authoritatively the editor must have either access to the will, or is relying on an account of someone privy to the will. If Daniel Robinson is alluded to or mentioned in the will, he would be notified, or could petition the court for access to the will. I imagine if there was a genuine belief then lawsuits will be forthcoming re paternity and inheritance. Until then, this is merely speculation and allegations.
 * As to the supposed autobiographical nature of "Baby Out of Wedlock", the presumption should be that it is not. Many of the songs on SNUTS could likewise be seen as autobiographical, but merely reflect the perspective of the pilgrim as he journeys toward redemption.
 * Regarding Charles Norman's paternity, the presumption would be that Margaret Norman (nee Stout) is his mother, and that Larry is Charles' older brother. I imagine the absence of pregnancy for Margaret would be easy to prove if there was a Norman family conspiracy to cover up LN's peccadilloes. In the absence of such proof, the presumption should be that Margaret is Charles' mother. The bottom line is that editors for this article, or documentary makers, need to "put up or shut up". As they used to say on Dragnet - just the facts.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Agreed on all points except proving the existence or presence of a pregnancy by Larry's mother. There may be photographic records from the time in proof of the pregnancy, but otherwise highly unlikely. I agree that there has been sufficient innuendo around Larry and that documentation is necessary. As I stated above, Larry's self-documentation can be dubious. If i write something in a letter all it proves is that I believe it, not that it is true. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, my point has been clumsily made. Occam's Razor insists that the simplest explanation is usually the best. The simplest explanation is that Charly is Larry's brother, not his son. Beliefs to the contrary definitely would need strong substantiation. My point about the pregnancy is that there is a lack of any claim that LN was Charly's father until comparatively recently. Margaret's pregnancy in 1964-1965 would have been obvious, or the lack of it and the sudden appearance of Charly, should have been noticed. The point is that it is up to the sceptics to prove their case, not the other way.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC))
 * "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you eliminate the impossible, it leaves the actual, the probable, the possible and the improbable. I think the claim that LN is the father of Charly is in the latter category based on the lack of compelling evidence.(smjwalsh (talk) 06:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)).


 * I'm not at all sure why the claim regarding Charles parentage is being discussed here at all. Wikipedia Verifiability states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Also, "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page."
 * This particular subject currently breaks just about every rule going, and the burden is on the editor adding the claim to provide real evidence. If other editors wish to go offline and try to find such evidence themselves then fair enough, but the claim itself is null and void until such evidence can be presented. Now of course, Charles has already provided as much evidence as he realistically can, not that he had any responsibility to do so. (His birth certificate is on the Failed Angle website). Whokilledduncan (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, Hear! Well said.(smjwalsh (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * I hope you don't mind that I adjusted the indent. I fully agree. I think that the anonymous editor was wrong in inserting unverifiable information, some of which could be considered slanderous. I only wanted to give the editor a chance to give us some refs. If I hadn't heard these rumours as well and didn't want to get to the bottom of it, I would have marked them all as vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find Charly's birth certificate at Failed Angel. Can you post link? Thanks.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
 * http://www.failedangle.com/site/rumours/BirthCert.jpg Whokilledduncan (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's like it's a state secret. So much blacking. Mother's family name not identified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Also, is that a birth certificate or some other legal document? The heading is not displayed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why a portion being blacked out is an issue. He has displayed more than enough to dispel the claim. Whokilledduncan (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect for privacy reasons and to prevent possible identity theft. Flemming provides enough to satisfy those who doubt Charly's paternity. The only information missing that is not in the WP article is the name of the hospital, and place of birth of LN's parents.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I too suspect for privacy reasons and to prevent possible identity theft, but it's not enough information. The document type is missing. It could be an adoption record not a birth certificate. I'm not sure what it is on the third line either. Sex: male ?????: Single. Single birth (as opposed to one of twins)? Single adoption? Single what? This is a poor document. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, it is partially obscured to reduce the risk of identity fraud. It would be utterly foolish to present one's entire birth certificate on the internet. Saying that, some people have done just that. Use a google image search for "california birth certificate 1965" and you will find results that look exactly like the document presented on Failed Angle. The part you can't read says "This birth single, twin or triplets". Why for example, would the physician who attended the birth sign to confirm such, and that the child was born alive on an adoption certificate? In any case, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not on Charles to prove otherwise, so I don't really see why this document contains "not enough information". (Unless you believe that a California adoption certificate circa 1965 would look exactly like a birth certificate other than the header).
 * Is the hospital in which his siblings were born of particular importance to a Wikipedia article on Larry Norman? Is this not possibly venturing into minutae for details sake, rather than of any importance? Whokilledduncan (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The hospital itself is not important. The document type is. Thanks for clearing that up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hospital name is not important to me, nor most people, but for those sceptics who doubt Charly's paternity, the fact that he was born in a hospital should put paid to allegations that Charly was born to someone else and then registered fraudulently as Margaret Norman's child.(smjwalsh (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
 * There is some confusion about exactly when LN married Sarah Finch. Was it 1982 or 1984? When were they divorced?(smjwalsh (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

Wow. The birth certificate image has changed since I looked at it first. It now indicates that it's a certificate of live birth and some of the fields that were censored are now visible. This erases all doubt. Except for the part where Di Sabitino told me to look at the date it was signed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What could DDS be doubting now? Charly was born 8 March, his mother (the informant) signed the next day, and it was filed on 16 March after attending doctor and nurse also signed. It certainly makes those who just knew that LN had admitted being Charly's father look foolish. It certainly damages their credibility, or that of their good sources. For some reason, LN's "Shot Down" is in my head. Except this time we know who has been shot down.(smjwalsh (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * David has seen a different birth certificate for Charles. Not the one in the archives. He instructed me to look at the date where it was signed. He too was baffled as to how he could be shown one and this other was clearly different. He also commented, in Facebook, that Rich Buhler, the founder and operator of TruthOrFiction.com, interviewed David and Charles. I am told that it is an interesting piece. I inferred that Charles did not come off looking stellar. David will post it on his web site. It will be in audio format. Not sure about a transcript. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the FB page. Let's see what is said in the interview before we jump to any conclusions. Who showed DDS a "different birth certificate"? Either someone showed him the wrong certificate (perhaps from a person with the same name - I actually found a Charles E Norman whose mother's maiden name was Stout, who was born in LA in 1958.), someone faked a certificate, DDS is inventing his claim, or some other bizarre explanation. The one posted seems authentic. There is an actual hospital. There are 2 witnesses. What more is needed?(smjwalsh (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC))
 * The fact that the interview happened is on Facebook. The additional information was from a private chat with David via Facebook chat. This includes information about the birth certificate. It could be that David invented that claim. It was merely a conversation. He also made it clear that he no longer that that copy in his possession. The one posted does seem authentic. There are also several irregularities. They could be from being folded or stored oddly. They could also be from photoshop. I don't know. It's just an image. I'm not saying it is a fake, I'm just saying that when I scanned my son's birth certificate, it came out better than that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it is a fake. I'm saying it looks like a bad fake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Think about what you just wrote. DDS hears rumours about LN being Charly's father. DDS has a different version of the birth certificate in his possession (the smoking gun). DDS is making a documentary about LN - a Bible Story, yet somehow loses/misplaces this document that would be invaluable to his story! Remember DDS has formal academic qualifications, has had a scholarly bibliography published, has written extensively on the Jesus Movement, has tracked down and kept obscure magazine articles and memorabilia. It seems incredible (literal meaning) to me as an historian that such a crucial document (if it ever existed) has disappeared. Perhaps LN's Phans stole it (pardon my cynicism). It's the classic the dog ate my homework defence. Perhaps the dog's name was Phydeaux? Besides the image posted on Failed Angle, I accessed records of Charly's birth on ancestry.com which publishes directly from California State records that confirms essential elements of the published birth certificate. There is absoloutely no discrepancy between the records and the published certificate. Any perceived flaws in the scanning are surely not relevant. The details are clear and easy to read.(smjwalsh (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * Again, it's not in his possession, it was displayed to him. So no phans nor dogs needed to be involved. Also Charlie's paternity was never an issue in the film, Daniel's was. I'm sure that there are no discrepancies, it's just a bad scan. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

LN's will
Above we discussed the (now removed) unsubstantiated claim that "Daniel Robinson was named in Larry Norman's will where Larry denied that he was his son, but then went on to state that if he somehow proved paternity, he would still only get one percent of the estate." I finally tracked down the probable putative source for the now removed claims re Norman's will and Daniel Robinson. It is found in a post entitled "Legal Update on Daniel Robinson, the estranged son of Larry Norman" posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 9:25pm, by Andrew Wallace, husband of Jennifer Wallace, whose son is Daniel Robinson, the alleged son of Larry Norman. For the response of Norman's biographer, see http://www.failedangle.com/site/wallace/wallace.html(smjwalsh (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
 * A more direct link to it is: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=217045135071 --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally forgot. This is still all hearsay as David's Facebook page is not a recognized expert and no source documents are provided, nor is there any information directly identifying Daniel's lawyer nor is there any information directly quoted from the lawyer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it should not be included, but this seems to be where the statements in the excluded sentence (above) come from. The specificity of the original claim (eg 1%) suggested someone with access to the will was the source. Now we can surmise who - Daniel, and his legal reps. Even should this be admissible, LN clearly denies paternity. The 1997 version clearly indicates awareness of the claims from Andrew's mother. It could well be that Daniel sincerely believes LN was his father simply because that is what his mother has told him. Her claims also need to be subjected to the same tests of probity as LN's - no double standard. The legal presumption is that LN is NOT the father of Daniel, until conclusively proven otherwise.(smjwalsh (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Additionally, Daniel gives his birthdate as 11 July 1989. Was LN and Daniel's mother in proximity to one another in the appropriate gestational moment (ie October 1988, or later if Daniel was premature). Research of LN's itinerary in Australia would need to be found. The relevant Failed Angel page seems to confirm some details of the legal process, but not the specifics of the will's contents (but again it doesn't deny them either - argument from silence).(smjwalsh (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC))

The UK Gospel Music article cannot be trusted
http://www.larrynorman.uk.com/bio.htm "In 1973, while recording So Long Ago The Garden for MGM, Larry decided to start his own record label, Solid Rock Records. He departed from MGM in 1974 and signed with ABC Records for distribution. At the time, ABC was branching out by purchasing Word Records - so suddenly Larry’s albums became more acceptable through association with Word. Before this time his albums may have been widely available at Tower Records, Our Price and other secular record stores, but they could rarely be found in Christian bookshops." There are two problems with this Surely Larry's personal archives would have a signed copy of the contract with ABC. Something interesting in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music article on Larry is the large section on how Larry had a "penchant for revisionist history" (p. 638). This is what I was referring to above. The entire entry at that site is written by Larry and it's essentially "revisionist history". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The dates are misleading. ABC didn't take its 10% stake in Word until 1976, which is when Solid Rock started. See the Word Records article.
 * 2) The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music doesn't mention it, although that's not conclusive since it doesn't mention the 10% stake that ABC had in Myrrh either.
 * 3) Have you ever seen an ABC-distributed copy of any Solid Rock items? Was this only a UK distribution deal with the American Broadcasting Company? The only place I can find this information is exact copies of the UK Gospel Music article and his self-published obituary.
 * Thanks for your comments. I will not discuss the accuracy of the extract you quote from (http://www.larrynorman.uk.com/bio.htm) as this page is meant to discuss the WP article. However, as this source is used to support the ABC Records connection with LN, I will respond to that aspect (which is currently in the WP article).

You may be right about what is in LN's archives. He seems to be almost compulsive in keeping much of his correspondence etc. There may be revisionism in LN's claims, as there seem to be in most people who are reflecting years later or relying on their memories. There even seems to be some by Norman's contemporaries. Current statements do not accord with written interviews published decades earlier. It may be deception, self-deception, mis-recollection, exaggeration. It may be nefarious or innocuous. Generally speaking WP does allow the claims of the subject of biographical articles, but contrary or conflicting information needs to be cited. It is hard to say 1) LN wrote the entire article (unless LN admits that) 2) that it is "revisionist history". That can only be an opinion (therefore POV). The better course of action is to analyse claims and document inconsistencies, and allow the reader to make their own conclusions.(smjwalsh (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)).
 * 1) More research needs to be done re ABC and Word. Unfortunately WP articles cannot be used to support other WP articles. The reference quoted in the Word Music WP article does not establish anything. I have ordered the book it refers to, so will be interested to read it.
 * 2) Arguments from silence are rarely convincing. You point out the inadequacy of the ECCM on this issue yourself.
 * 3) No. Not yet. I found an AB records distribution of Streams of White Light, but this is not related. It could be that ABC did not brand LN's albums, as I likewise did not find any reference to Word on some other Solid Rock albums in the relevant period.
 * Once again, your care in responding is balanced and informed. As for 3., if they're only a distribution group, they likely don't brand the material they're distributing. They only take a cut. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)