Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 2 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Norman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	Larry Norman was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 13, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Texas This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oregon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christian music High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Charismatic This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Norman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Article length yet again

In an article that has long been tagged as too long and too full of intricate detail, the onus is on the person who wishes to add content to show the value of that content. Active Banana ( 23:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that's a policy. I thought it was the onus of editors to make it smaller. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No one is stopping anyone from doing so. Article has been reduced 10-12% since its peak size with very little resistance from me. I'm quite happy for those with the desire to prune the article as they see fit. However, as you acknowledge, there are recent edits that have merit. So, if Activebanana wants a better article, he/she should take the time and go through the article (as other editors have done from time to time) and apply the scalpel rather than a machete.smjwalsh (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the arguement that "it was even bigger before so I should be able to add back content." doesnt carry weight. Active Banana ( 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that no content should be added at all ever? Should I just send proposed edits to you first in this new Banana Republic? If you were familiar with the subject matter, like Walter, you would see the value of the edits. I can edit and add content as WP says Be Bold and edits are all within WP policies. You now have 2 editors telling you that there was no consensus violation, and you acknowledge no policies were broken.smjwalsh (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I've only been in WP 4-5 years and so do not know all of WP guidelines or policies. Can you point me to this particular policy you are referencing? My understanding is that there is no mandatory upper limits of articles, and that perceived excessive length of an article should not preclude any edits that conform in all over respects to WP guidelines. I believe that the burden is actually on you in this case.smjwalsh (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not policy, but guidelines for which there should be specific valid reasons to ignore. Misplaced Pages:Article size Misplaced Pages:IINFO#IINFO. Active Banana ( 23:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't fly bananaphone. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the improvement to the encyclopedia to ignore the guidelines in this instance? Specifically make your case. Active Banana ( 14:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ignore all rules. That's what the page you linked to says. The case here is not special at all. There's no reason not to add additional information to an article just because it's already long. What needs to happen is the information should be reviewed and material not directly related to the subject, or not specifically vital to the subject should be removed. However, until that review happens, there's no reason not to add information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Walter. While I have no plans to add information to this article, perceived excessive length ought not be an impediment for adding material, nor for creating guidelines for this specific article where no WP rules or policies are being violated. I realise this article is not of the same quality as Active Banana's magnum opus, I believe it makes a substantial contribution to human knowledge.smjwalsh (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not split the article some? Calling it too long remains subjective

An illness section, including the music associated with raising funds and the death could be its own article. Another possible article would be a Legacy/impact including notable collaborations. Another one could be the musical career over several decades with just a summary needed in his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.212 (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing subjective about it. The article is too fricken long for anyone but the fanatic who keeps insertiing content to actually read it. Active Banana ( 04:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It is too long. It is currently the 26th longest article on Misplaced Pages. The problem is that the content is mostly of interest to a small group of fans (read: Solid Rock Army, etc.) and those 100 or so people are really the only ones who are capable of removing what should be removed and what shouldn't. As for Mr. Walsh's edits, I don't think there's anything wrong with adding information to an encyclopedia, however, it must be vetted more closely to pare back the aforementioned cruft. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No it's still subjective. But whether or not it is a bit pointless. Back to the point then. Any non-prejudicial ideas how splitting the article might help? For some readers anything could be too long or too short. If a document is laid out well it has an index so you can find the information you're looking for. Misplaced Pages's treatment of the early Christian musicians of the 1970's and 1980's is (oh-ho! subjective) very poor and Larry is one of the most influential figures of the genre. Just saying! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.34.212 (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's neither subjective not pointless, but feel free to hold to your subjective opinion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dividing it up will require even more text to explain what happened before, and after, each spun-off article. What this would also require, is a succinct summary, as an overview, referring to all the specialist spun-off articles.
Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course the matter of an article's length is subjective. Like Goldilock's porridge, it is obviously too long for some, of sufficient length for others, and possibly not long enough for others. Context of publication would determine appropriateness of length. This article would be too short for a dissertation, thesis, or even a published biography. As it appears that the promised LN biography is probanly at least 2-3 years away, and as this information appears no where else, I believe it meets a need (even if for only 134 current SRA members), and the scores of people who flock to see DDS's documentary Fallen Angel. I note that the article was viewed "10728 times in 201105" (http://stats.grok.se/en/201105/Larry_Norman) or an average of just over 300 times a day. However, while WP does not have a maximum length for articles, there are guidelines for length which I respect. According to those guidelines, the upper limit is about 100kB. Currently LN article is: Prose size (text only): 130 kB (22319 words) "readable prose size". What propels this article to 28th largest is the proliferation of references to substantiate material to ensure fact is separated from "spin" or polemic, or to show where specific claims are made. Surely no one would argue that there should be less documentation. Anyway, As I have indicated for at least a year, the article should be split into sub-articles. I have previously done this to create the articles on the relationship between LN & Randy Stonehill, as well as the Musicals of LN. I propose the following sub-articles:

• Early Life and career of Larry Norman - would cover 1947 to 1966
• Larry Norman's Capitol years (1966 to 1969) - covers involvement with People! and Upon This Rock
• Larry Norman's Hollywood Years (1968 to 1971) - street ministry, musicals, One Way Records
• Larry Norman's MGM Years (1971-1974)
• Larry Norman's health and death (1978-2008)
• Contributions of Larry Norman

I am open to any other suggestions, or even additional sub-articles. It's time to address the length and then "cruft" issues.smjwalsh (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"What propels this article to 28th largest is the proliferation of references " - you are not seriously suggesting that we compare the text only length of this article to the text+reference length of other articles to determine its status as being too long???? Active Banana ( 22:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No such comparison is made nor intended. The point I made clumsily it seems is that if the LN article had far less documentation (say 10% of total length), it would be 50% of current size, and not feature as high on the list of long articles as it does, and thus would have avoided attention of drop by editors. If it was exactly as is (130kB) plus an additional 10% of references (13KB), it would total 143kB, and would be just outside the top 1000 longest articles, ranking below such notables as Alexandru Macedonski. I'm not suggesting reducing the documentation, merely pointing out that the the list of long articles is ranked by raw size not by size of readable prose, which is the area benchmarked by length guidelines.smjwalsh (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the detail included is helpful but may need to be cleaned up a bit. For instance there are numerous timeline queues that are blurred when later quotes and events outside the timeline are layered in. That's not bad writing but rather confusing to those not familiar with the subject. I agree a split off of Larry Norman's plane accident, later years, and death would make a compelling read. Here's an influential and prolific artist talking about how an accident affected his work and later being healed from that perceived damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The detail is not helpful to anyone but the most serious fans. I'm actually thinking of removing the recent "move" of content because it wasn't done correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is your subjective opinion and you are right to have one. I can't say I'm a fan at all but I do find the detail very helpful just presented poorly in some cases. A simple turn of phrase and not burying the lead can be helpful here. Cluetrain (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple English version

As a "naughty" suggestion, I note Larry Norman does not have an article in the "Simple English" language Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could develop a Simple English version and use that as the overview here?
Arjayay (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I admire your desire to propose a way forward. However, a Simple English version, while needed, is not a shorter version of the original. It requires skill in using the 850 words of basic English to ensure children, and those with limited English can comprehend the article.smjwalsh (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Split

I don't think Solid Rock and Daniel Amos should be moved into Larry Norman's health, later years, and death. Any objection to restoring them here? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think they can fit into both articles. IMHO some of the section organizing has created problems but I don't see in this case that those items can only be in one or the other. Cluetrain (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not whether the can fit into both articles, but where the better location for them is. They should not be in both but in one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. That article needs to be reworked to show how his health impacted his work. Currently it only glosses over that information. I see no rush to delete it from either article. If you feel it needs to be re-aded here then it can be in both articles. This main article needs a lot of work so this is simply a starting point. Cluetrain (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree. I know I disagree with the move. This article does need to be reworked, but you're starting too early in his career to select the date of when his health problems happened. The plane fuselage incident is disputed (see The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music and other sources). The fact that he did major tours after that means he wasn't in failing health until his heart attack. Also, moving the delay of the Horrendous Disc into the new article is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with his health issues. It has everything to do with issues around the collapse of Solid Rock, which should also be in the main article. It was essentially after SR fell apart that he fell off the face of the media.

However, I think the entire article should be edited heavily, simplified, and all the fan cruft moved to a fan site where it belongs. The article about Larry should be no more five screen pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It was good to start the process of creating the oft-discussed long-proposed LN sub-articles. Having done so previously, I know there are many intricate procedures involved in creating the new article, dealing with references, and then summarising material in the main article. Here are my responses to the above discussion:

• I'm not sure the new article is best-named. It should either be "Larry Norman's health issues and death", which would focus exclusively on his health starting with the plane accident (I know it is disputed but even Mangano acknowledges it happened, although he disputes its affect) through the heart attack, healing, and conclude with his death. It would thus exclude the Damiel Amos and Solid Rock material now included.smjwalsh (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• It could be re-titled "Larry Norman's later years and death", which would include all the current material less the late 1970s material eg plane accident, White House, etc. I think the collapse of Solid Rock in June 1980 would be the key turning point in his career. This would be my preferred option.smjwalsh (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• In any case, creating new sub-articles would also necessitate leaving at least a summary of the removed sections in the main LN article, as this eventually would be the place a casual reader would look to find out about Larry Norman, and then those interested in more detail or specific topics could look to suggested sub-articles. For this reason, I have restored the death and awards sections (without deleting same from new article). Consequently, there is a need to create summary of LN's later years in the main article.smjwalsh (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Early life and career of Larry Norman article

I have created a new sub-article: Early life and career of Larry Norman, which covers the period from birth to just before the release of Upon This Rock, which will allow pruning of this main article in the relevant sections.smjwalsh (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Larry Norman seminal period article

I believe the next sub-article should cover the period when LN returned to Capitol Record in 1969 through to the collapse of Solid Rock in June 1980. Any thoughts about suitable article title?smjwalsh (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Something like Larry Norman's career during the 1970s? And make sure the summary explains what transitions took place. vCluetrain (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary. Prune this article severely and then include all of the important information in this one article. Stop splitting this article off into sub-articles just to make this article appear smaller. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You can hold off insinuating my motives, my only interest is helping this content get presented better. It's actually quite incomplete in some areas and some points might have extra details. Simple copyediting can resolve much of this. Everyone knows you want to eliminate all the subjectively unimportant information. There is obvious differing opinions on what is important or not and I only see Smjwalsh cooperating with keeping everything in synch while content is shifted around. I come at this with fresh eyes and much of the "unimportant" detail is quite helpful just presented awkwardly. In addition it feels like much of the bulk is in the notes and references which will in turn get moved to subarticles and can be cleaned up as people feel the need. You read an encyclopedia to learn information, I don't see too much information as a problem here. I do think the writing, presentation and formatting need to improve but none of that dictates sever pruning. Of course, this is all my opinion and I don't claim to be an expert on Norman. Cluetrain (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing motive at all. I simply stated the facts. The article is smaller. Material was removed. No summary was added to replace the removed material. So in essence, the article is worse off and Misplaced Pages is no better off. I'm not really editing because I'm afraid that my edits would be considered disruptive. I would simply remove vast blocks of material. As a non-Norman expert, you have chosen a strange subject to focus all of your energies on. Since you created your account, you have only edited LN article. This is what we call a Single-purpose account. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You insinuated that sub articles were only being created to make this one appear smaller, that is not the case, at least for me. Smjwalsh seems to be much more familiar and corrected some aspects to make it all work better. I pretty much agree with all their improvements including the renaming. Now you insinuate I might have "promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas". Just maybe this is the first article I was interested enough in editing and felt I could help on. I suppose you would assume I was focussing "all my energies" (I'm not) on whatever articles I first decided to edit. Most people would say 'thank you'. Cluetrain (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did no insinuate that the move was made only to shorted this article, I stated it outright.

I'm not insinuating that you might have promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. I simply stated that you have only edited Larry Norman articles since you arrived here two days ago. I don't know what your motives are but I assume good faith. However you have not edited any other articles and that's a red flag.

Am I missing anything? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as you keep expressing yourself so well I imagine your status quo will remain steadfast. I choose to work with other people and although I have been a long reader of Misplaced Pages I did not feel the urge to edit much until now. I'm starting to regret it in fact. The slashing of content that's going on while sub articles are being organized seems particularly "disruptive". Was the fact that Norman could not read or write music somewhat relative to his story> You betcha. How about that his parents became Christians rather than merely went to a church. That would seem important as well. I'm not an expert but I have plenty of common sense. I have only been working on this article as it's the first article I've worked on. Don't people have to start somewhere? I fail to see your logic and I hope to see your point of view, until then I'll work my best to improve the article and keep checking in. Cluetrain (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, Norman's inability to read or write music is not relevant at all. Most modern musicians can't. The editing is not at all disruptive. It's actually needed, and more of it. People do have to start somewhere, but the usual pattern in that editors don't focus on a single subject. They tend to focus on a broad topic. I fail to see your logic and I hope you start editing more broadly to your sake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Cluetrain was a sockpuppet. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was frustrated by his initial split as I had proposed a schema for sub-articles and was waiting for comments or consensus before proceeding. I felt he had in his zeal jumped the gun, but was prepared to try and work with it as best I could as I do not own the article. So where do we go from here? Restore the 1980 to death material in main article and then allow pruning, to try to keep all relevant material in one article? Of course, this will increase article size back to almost original size. In my head, I had always hoped for sub-articles with detailed material (perhaps not as much as there was), with main article then pared to summary of sub-article. In any case, current situation is unsatisfactory as you identify in lower sction with "the rest of the story" now omited in main article.smjwalsh (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored most of material shifted by Cluetrain as per above discussion, without touching areas recently edited by Collector. I propose leaving sub-articles alone for now until dust settles again on this main article.smjwalsh (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Benchmark for article length

Currently article's readable prose size is "Prose size (text only): 91 kB (15626 words)". What quantifiable objective standard as measured by readable prose size would result in the article no longer being deemed "too large". As there is no maximum size legislated for WP articles, and the guidelines only refer to readable prose size, and the upper limit of the guidelines is 100 kB, would it be now agreed that the article is now within the acceptable range and thus no longer "too large"? I reognise that there are those who will say that anything on LN is too much, and there are subjective aspects of this matter, but it would be helpful to have a consensus on this subject. Personal preference cannot be the standard. How do we read the WP guidelines? The intricacy of detail issue still needs to be addressed, and I see efforts made in this direction today, even though there may things removed that should be restored based on previous discussions.smjwalsh (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I see article is now #244 on longest WP articles (*down from #26 last week). I see that efforts to reduce agreed upon trivia will reduce size in this main article, although there will be an increase caused by re-insertion of a summary of the Solid Rock and later years material.smjwalsh (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Only because a large chunk was completely removed and a new article was created with that information. Not even a summary of the material was left behind. I don't know that there's a benchmark other than the 32 K. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that is the reason for reduction, but Adolf Hitler article (for example) has something like 20+ sub-articles. Some entertainers eg Elvis Presley have dozens of sub-articles, including one for every album. I think if we continue to create necessary sub-articles, shift material (or duplicate it in the sub-articles) and then focus on getting this article to something like you have described previously through reduction of intricate detail. Then, allow editos to work at individual sub-articles where length will be less of a consideration, thus allowing some intricate detail.smjwalsh (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Two issues with that. The first is that when material is pulled to make a sub-article, something should be left behind as a précis of what was removed. However the edit that removed it did so en masse and left nothing behind. There's no reason to go see that article.

The second is that relatively speaking, they're important historical figures. All respect given, Mr. Norman isn't.

In short, all that's needed here is for the extraneous material to be heavily edited and we'll have a shorter article. The edits made my Collect are a perfect example. Long block quotes, and material about people who aren't really important.

And quite honestly, the demise of Solid Rock is really the end of the first era, not the start of the second. The split has been made on the wrong side of the historical time-line. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first point 100%. The first split was well-intentioned but did more harm than good. I almost joined you in reverting the split altogether just for that reason alone. Consequently, there is material that needs to be restored. I agree that LN is not as important historically as either MJ or Elvis. I know you will aknowledge that LN is notable and important in the early beginnings of Christian Rock. My point was not that LN deserves more or even as much as those folk, merely that the length of those articles are deemed acceptable. There is no guideline that says less important topics are only entitled to less words or size. To do so would make appropriate length subjective. I'm looking for an objective benchmark that can be agreed. smjwalsh (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to comment on your Solid Rock comment. I agree. If there is to be three articles (which I know you disagree with in concept) divided into Early (1947-1969) "Seminal" (1969-1980) and Later periods (1980 onwards), then best to conclude with dissolution of Solid Rock. If the chrobolog is bifurcated then 1947-1980, 1980-2008. I don't see sub-articles as "load shedding" but a better place for material that may be excursive or more intricate. Perhaps that was collect trai9n's agenda (or to stir up trouble) but I accepted his edits at face value. If you look at some of Collect's edits in the lede, I imagine you might conclude that there was excessive cutting there eg penchant for revisionist etc is removed. I would be in favour of restoring lede and them allowing some trimming in areas of significance. What do you think?

I've been looking at Michael Jackson article as it's well-written and has many related articles. This one still needs a lot of work but will be easier to get around when sub articles are created. Cluetrain (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Michael Jackson article. It has been a featured article so obviously meets WP standards, so a good benchmark article. Its current stats are: File size: 709 kB, Prose size (including all HTML code): 166 kB, References (including all HTML code): 51 kB, Wiki text: 187 kB, Prose size (text only): 81 kB (13547 words) "readable prose size". To achieve this, It has 11 sub-articles identified as well as all his albums etc. It is not flagged as too long. LN article is 10% longer as measured by readable prose. So, would this be an acceptable point to remove "too long" tag on LN article?smjwalsh (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I will let the BLP comment on the length. Again my main issue is that Mr. Norman is not a notable as Mr. Jackson. If notability were the only issue, I'd say reducing the size and number of articles to 10% of the Jackson article should be enough. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could compare the length of the LN entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music to that of other artists. Norman's entry there is eight and a half pages. Resurrection Band is five. Stonehill, four and half. Amy Grant: six and a half. Love Song (band): four. Randy Matthews: three and half. Phil Keaggy: eight, and that because he had a longer career after the seventies. Perhaps balance this article with those. Any others you'd like me to list? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A fair comment. The question could be is LN too long or those other subject's articles on WP too short. :) Would you agree that Powell's article (ECCM) would be appropriate length for WP for LN. It is 17 columns or probably 8,000 words. I believe WP article should strive to be better than Powell's. He covers all the relevant events but with no scholarly aparatus at all. Powell also does not attempt to identify all controversial areas in LN's life and career, and balance claims and counter-claims. smjwalsh (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Powell also misses, for obvious reasons, much of the last decade of Norman's life, not that it was outstanding: a few "final" concerts and the battle over the inclusion of his music in a similarly minor documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

True. So would a target of (say) 9,000 words of readable prose for now be desirable.smjwalsh (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I suppose it depends how we get there. If it's just moving information into new sub-articles and all the extra information from this article is just relocated, I don't think it would be. If it's really pruning, then it would be excellent. I would even think longer would be fine in that case. I measure it by the overall length of the material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Not reasonable material in lede etc. Misplaced Pages is not a place for every factoid imaginable

Ledes should be a short and concise overview of the topic - not an article unto themselves. WP:LEDE. In addition, blockquotes should be used exceedingly sparingly and be of direct relevant to the person - not to expounding their every waking thought <g>. Third - frequently a shorter article gets more widely read and absolutely more widely understood. Misplaced Pages is not a repository for every factoid on any topic, and certainly not for detailed discussion about every song a person wrote or performed, or was or was not released, etc. See Mark Twain for how a large oeuvre gets handled in a good BLP. The prupose here is to make an encyclopedia article which will be of actual use to others. Let's try getting the article down to what is sufficient for even Mark Twain - 93K. And he was actually a teeny bit more important than Norman. Or a very prolific person Joseph Widney at 60K. He used to be 194K. There is no valid reason for Misplaced Pages to be "Toolongopedia". Really. Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First, let me indicate that I will not be opposing every effort being made to prune/trim article, and will only endeavour to restore/discuss material that I genuinely believe to be essential to a correct understanding of a controversial subject. You mentioned Joseph Widney and may recall that I was most co-operative in your efforts to edit the article to a more readable and accessible size. As I pointed out back in 2008 when Widney was the focus of our shared intersts, I am not precious in the treatment of my contributions. It seems that my interests are more in article creation and research, and that I struggle with conciseness and awareness of what interests the general reader. (1) I agree with reduction of lede, although there are probably a few clauses or sentences that could be restored. There was a major discussion on this page about Powell's comments about Norman's penchant for revisionist history, with the consensus to keep it, so probably that should be restored as it is a coomon belief about LN, and prepares reader for the fact that there are claims by LN that some doubt. Any additions to the lede would be minimal. (2) I hear what you are saying about block quotes. However, there are times when it is essential to get actual words rather than a precis, especially with this subject as much discussion in online communities focuses on what people believe is said often removed from a context. (3) I agree with your point here. I must confess I have been staggered by negative reaction to article size, as my own intersts are omnivorous. I'd rather know more than settle for less, but it seems that my position is very much a minority one. I always feel that casual readers can read what interests them, but also allow more specialised or detailed knowledge be accessible for those who want more than the headlines. (4)I have no illusions that LN is more important than many whose WP articles are shorter, but he is very important in a minority area of interest (Christian music). I'm still not convinced importance of subject to whole population is best barometer of article length in an online encyclopedia. I can understand argument better for old school printed encyclopediae. Anyway, again I reiterate my continued willingness to co-operate with your aims as we all share the goal of creating a better article.smjwalsh (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No sweat - I recall your cooperation for sure. I still feel that a lede of more than 3 paragraphs is likely to have material of secondary importance (rather the same position I have on pills - after the first three pills one takes at a time, the probability of the fourth most important pill helping is reduced by the likelihood that the interaction with the first three will reduce their effectiveness <g>). Secondly, I think that in most cases a long blockquote does no more for the article than a short sentence concerning the topic - the words of the person involved may offer no more insight to the reader. Thirdly, this article has a lot of stuff about many songs - I suggest we limit these to (say) four or five pivotal songs. The rest can be listed, but there is little that the reader will learn from lengthy discourse about every lyric. Really. "Less is more" is a truism. Note, by the way, my position on the British line of sucession article, where I found a 95% reduction to be excessive. The ideal is to reach a reasonable level where people will read the full article, and not to the point where they only see two pages and are done. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the decision that FailedAngle.com is a RS or not?

I don't recall any discussion on the topic. Care to show either the positive or negative? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There was discussion in April 2010. It can be reviewed in Archive 1. Three editors (none of them me) discuss it. There Walter is one who accepts Failedangle.com as an RS, as do the other two. see .smjwalsh (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the website significant to the topic to be added? At the moment the content there is sourced to itself (a self published source, I hope it is obvious to everyone why it is inappropriate to source "a website rebutting the video exists for X reason" purely to the website) and to a weebly.com address (again, another self published unreliable source). Another factor is that I believe it is being given undue weight via having its own heading. This is related to major BLP issues on Di Sabatino article where similar content was being used to disparage the guy; which is how I located the material.

Do any reliable sources identify this website as significant? --Errant 06:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the weebly.com address is questionable at best (with the possible exception of the recording of LN), and should be removed. It was also created as part a public exchange between Charles Norman and David Di Sabatino, and makes little sense outside of that context. The Failed Angle site, however, contains significant material from the archives of the subject of this article. The site is published, to my understanding, by the individual currently writing an authorized biography of Larry Norman. He has been given access to LN's archives, and the family has authorized the release of primary sources from the archives ahead of the biography's release to counter some of the claims in the movie. The materials include letters, audio recordings, contracts, etc., that have not been previously available. The Failed Angle website is significant in that it responds directly to the claims made by the movie with primary sources that are unavailable anywhere else. This is especially relevant given that the subject is deceased, and only has a voice through his archives.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Failed Angle site is published by the individual, and is self-published. Coverage needs to be independant to establish significance. The Failed Angle website is significant in that it responds directly to the claims made by the movie with primary sources that are unavailable anywhere else; basically you need a reliably published source that says this. Otherwise, unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet inclusion criteria. --Errant 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say that it is "published by the individual", are you referring to the subject of the article?--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry no. I meant to say it is published by an individual - the point to get across is that it is a self-published source without editorial control. The key is to get third party coverage - I've looked but can't find any. --Errant 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I have found some references on other sites that refer people to the Failed Angle site specifically as a counter to information that they have written about the film. A couple of examples are here and here. Much of this is somewhat new to me, so I am not certain if this is the type of third party coverage you are referring to.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that self-published materials can be used in limited circumstances. It seems stricter in relation to BLP (eg David Di Sabatino article) but certainly less so if the subject is deceased (eg Larry Norman). WP insists articles are NPOV. To achieve this at times sources that are undoubtedly POV need to be balanced by other sources that are also POV. The effect of including both POVs is that the relevant material is NPOV. Editors need to write from NPOV, whereas the sources themselves need not be so. Accordingly, both Di Sabatino's documentary and the failedangle.com achieve that primary WP objective collectively.smjwalsh (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To achieve this at times sources that are undoubtedly POV need to be balanced by other sources that are also POV; actually no, this is specifically a situation to avoid. I've been looking at the material. We can cover that a documentary was made and that it was controversial (with attempts for it to be blocked). None of that is covered in POV sources. If we started reciting claims in the documentary then, yeh, that is an issue.

As the "Angle" website relates to Di Sabatino as well the BLP concerns remain even on this article. My personal view is that Failed Angle may warrant a sentence if we can reliably source it. SPS are usable for factual detail about the subject - in this case the importance is to establish this as a significant response; which is not something the website can be considered reliable on :) The sources presented above are going in the right direction, but I think they are a bit "blog lik". We may need more input from RS/N on this. --Errant 15:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Claims made in the doco are in the article but appropriately balanced. The stated purpoe of Angle is to refute the claims of the doco. No doubt there are efforts to discredit DDS's methods, but nothing that would violate BLP IMHO. Long-time consensus position achieves what you suggest, without any other RS indicating its significance yet. smjwalsh (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The April 2010 discussion was over whether the website was a fan site or not. The conclusion was that it wasn't. Reliability was never discussed.

Just read the archive where you clearly stated about Failed Angle: "I have no problems as a source." It's fine, of course, if you have since changed your mind, but one would think that this discussion would have been to raise any issues regarding reliability.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But the concern was raised that the website has its own section. Is that balanced? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point, and I think that Smjwalsh's most recent edit has restore the previous version that included it only as a part another section.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Di Sabatino's documentary is a collection of interviews of many individuals. The web site is a collection of Larry's own machination. That makes it, as I've said (or at least alluded to) before, an unreliable source while the documentary is a reliable source.

And Clubfoot Johnson has yet to address the accusation of being a single purpose account. That single purpose: to make Di Sabatino look bad and discredit this documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than your mention of it here, I'm not aware of such an accusation, nor any need for me to respond to such personal attacks. I have asked you twice in another context to adhere to WP expectations of civility, and will do so again now for a third time. I will also take this opportunity to point out that the very article you linked to above contains the following caution for veteran editors: "Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing SPAs on their edits." Our time would be better served by focusing on the topic, and I suggest we return to that now..--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's a question. Your edits are suspicious and should, unless explained, be ignored. It's obvious that you're not a newcomer either. I am acting civily and would like to know what your relationship to subject is. Because there is also conflict of interest policy, and that is why, until your motives are revealed, that we should be suspicious of your edits and motives. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal attack when you continually choose to single me out. And if that was all you wanted to know, it's easier (and much nicer, BTW) to simply ask rather than accuse. I have no current or previous connection to Di Sabatino or to the Norman family, and other than owning some albums and attending a few concerts, I have no connection to Larry Norman. My guess is that most people who are interested in this topic are interested because of the music. There is no conflict of interest at any level. There is nothing suspicious about my edits, and I have engaged in good faith discussion at every point where there was a question. I have violated no Misplaced Pages policies that I am aware of. Near as I can tell you are an ardent supporter of Di Sabatino (you have stated as much on his discussion page recently) and appear to have difficulty with opinions that differ from your own. A quick scan of your talk page reveals that this phenomena is not isolated to Norman or Di Sabatino, as you seem to regularly have difficulty playing nice with others. I have no idea why you have become enamored with me to a point bordering on obsession but, as flattering as that is, I will ask now for a fourth time that you try to keep yourself focused on the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, all I have said about Di Sabatino is that I have corresponded with him privately. I have also spoken and corresponded with a great many other people people privately. That doesn't make me a supporter of Di Sabatino in the slightest. Because I am conveying his wishes with the group also doesn't make me a supporter, simply a messenger. You'll have to do better than lie about me and my intentions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The larger point was your inability to relate well with people you disagree with on multiple topics. I have no idea what your intentions are other than what you display for us. And while you are very comfortable attacking others, it is interesting how difficult is for you when others question you. In any case, let's see if we can keep you on point moving forward.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Back to the topic: the website is not a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Have just restored this section to long-time consensus position as it is apparent that consensus was emerging that certainly the most recent website by Charles Norman was seen as qualitatively different than Flemming's failedangle.com site and should be removed.smjwalsh (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am disappointed; Failed Angle is not a RS in discerning it as relevant - the lack of third party coverage is highly concerning (all other issues aside). Consensus can always be re-discussed - although I see only light discussion of this issue in the past. At this point, unfortunately no one appears to have presented a policy compliant argument to include this content. Our sourcing policies are clear - I think this material needs to be removed. --Errant 19:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What is most concerning is seeing people agreeing with my point about the weebly.com for which I give the same argument but ignoring it for Failed Angle :S the exact same problem exists there. --Errant 19:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I was ignoring it. I came up with a couple of examples of references that may or may not be adequate for Failed Angle, but did not find anything that could support the Weebly site. I do not see the two as identical, but I am also still learning about this issue. Apologies if you felt that your arguments were being ignored - that was certainly not my intention.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for some more input on RS specialists --Errant 19:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant, I am sorry that you are disappointed. I'm not sure why you are so emotionally invested in this article or the particular section we are discussing. No one has challenged your efforts on the Di Sabatino article in relation to www.failedangle.com yet, although to the extent it discusses Fallen Angel it is relevant and on topic. There are no personal attacks on Di Sabatino or his motives in this article. Have you read each and every page of failedangle? I can assure you that both Walter and I have, as has another editor wkd, who discussed the site, both here and in other places. Because you are not expected to be familiar with either the subject nor the dynamics of LN's post-morterm controversies (including the reaction to Fallen Angel), let me assure you that both Fallen Angel and failedangel.com are relevant. The fact that acknowledged opponents and proponents of LN and DDS agree on this ought to be considered pertinent. A strict constructionist or narrow interpretation of RS or SPS as you appear to be using does not improve the article. Read all of failedangle.copm and watch Fallen Angel as we all have, and then see what conclusions you would draw. This is not to say your opinions are not valid, merely less-informed than those with specialist knowledge of the subject matter and the maelstrom that surrounds LN and DDS.smjwalsh (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, no emotional involvement or interest - apart from the article meeting wiki rules. let me assure you that both Fallen Angel and failedangel.com are relevant.; unfortunately our views are irrelevant. If this view is not established in a reliable independant source then it is highly problematic. That is the crux of the problem :) merely less-informed than those with specialist knowledge of the subject matter and the maelstrom that surrounds LN and DDS; yes, I gather it is controversial topic. However this is no excuse for ignoring the underlying tenets of Misplaced Pages and allowing a self-published source to confirm its own significance. :) The documentary I would usually question FWIW but it is indisputably mentioned in reliable sources - this means they have judged it relevant. Evidence of the rebuttal having the same notice would be very much appreciated. The "we are experts" argument is not a policy based one, I am afraid. --Errant 23:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I haven't read every article on the site. Only a select few.

The relevance of the site to the subject is not at issue. Whether it's a WP:RS is. Using policy from the working group, is there anything that can be stated to support it as a RS? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Mid-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Texas articles
• Unknown-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Oregon articles
• Low-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• C-Class Christian music articles
• High-importance Christian music articles
• C-Class Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christian music articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• C-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles