Talk:At 89

Making corrections/additions
I seem to recall this article being a bit longer. It might be that some factual information was deleted (erroneously?) because of inadequate citations. I have joined WikiProject Albums in hopes of setting this and other entries to rights. For the record "At 89" was Pete Seeger's 2nd Grammy-winning album, the first being the 1996 release "Pete" which was recorded by Paul Winter.

I make no secret of the fact I am the engineer of record on this project. I have firsthand knowledge of facts that do not appear in the public record, but I will be judicious here, to cite only what is plainly verifiable, and citing references everywhere as appropriate. I do not want my editing to be summarily reverted, because someone favors procedure over facts. But I will respond to any comments left on this Talk page.

If I state that the album features a blend of instrumental and vocal songs, interspersed with poignant spoken word segments, I will not expect a citation of a tertiary source is needed. But I will include and cite some of the reviews that still remain online in my re-writes, and I will correct the broken link to the review at AllMusic, upon which the current article is apparently largely based.

Regards,

Jonathan JonathanD (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working to improve this article. Please be sure to source all content add to the entry. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but Ugh Another Believer !!

Was it too much to say "At 89" was his second Grammy winner? I know a lot of folkies did not like "Pete" but that seems no reason to erase all mention. Or perhaps that edit was not yours. Anyhow; I'll persist and ask for explanation if there are further deletions. It's easy enough to verify that "Pete" did win the Grammy in '96. Insisting on there being tertiary sources still extant on the web since '96 seems an artificial and hurtful standard to apply here.

I write and polish first; then attribute with citations when that is done - not the other way around! Why did you excise the things that were easy to find references for, and leave in the one item about the Howland Center that is harder to find a citation for? It seems you are not entirely a friend of the cause, despite your collegiality. However; I will assume good will, good faith, or good intentions at least.

All the Best,

Jonathan JonathanD (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologize!

It appears I caught you mid-edit Another believer. I saw a lot of content go away, but then some of it later appeared further down the page. Hopefully a train wreck will not occur.

Regards, JJD JonathanD (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)