Talk:Larry Norman

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 (UTC)

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 <ref name=Name></ref> and you can use them as many times as you like by placing this <ref name=Name/> 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)