Talk:Sam Brown III

Recent reversions
I requested that the IP who is reverting me start a thread to discuss changes, but he reverted me again, so I will start the discussion. I removed material which flagrantly runs afoul of WP:PROMO and WP:BLP, and noted so in the edit summary. The IP's edit summary response reads, "Not to be rude but the page already stated its ISSUES (April 2011) needing some further verification, and so forth. None of what was said is untrue, so deleting those bits shows lack of journalistic integrity. If anything, just add the references.". The article, now tagged for ten years, indeed has issues, one of which is lack of verification. The promotional aspects of the article, however, are not solved by verification; they are solved by pruning the promotional content. Truth is not really the issue on that matter; it's about presentation and rhetoric. Next, Wikipedia is not a journalistic outlet; it is an encyclopedia which gives information drawn from previously reported journalism. Furthermore, it is not my job to add the references; I removed contentious material, and the burden is on the restorer of that information to provide reliable sources to verify it. Lastly, since you are not a registered editor, I know these guidelines may be new to you, but first and foremost, let me tell you that repeatedly undoing other people's changes (especially if you don't have the full weight of policy behind you) is the last way you will get what you want on Wikipedia - so if you need to read or review any of the guidelines, I suggest starting with WP:EDITWAR. Chubbles (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Having not heard from the IP in several days, I suppose I have no reason not to believe the matter is closed, but I'll wait slightly longer for a response. Chubbles (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to my last edit, as my edits are supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Please respond here rather than reverting me if you'd like changes made. Chubbles (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This was handled well. However, your edit(s) do little to improve the article. Truncating info (which could be done on almost any page) doesn't - in this case - help the reader understand who Sam Brown is or his place in American music history. This guy coined the term 'rhythm and blues', which is substantial. How that is verified may be beyond the scope of this Talk page since we are dealing in hearsay. Also, you removed parts identifying him as a producer of musical acts from his productive era, namely Michael Jackson. Furthermore, and this was stated in my editorial detail, the ISSUES header already mentioned that the text needs better citation; none of that qualifies you to remove content.72.174.131.123 (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the information you've provided here would be valuable to include so long as it is supported by reliable sources. This is important so that we meet the requirement of verifiability, which is an official encyclopedic policy. The content should not be restored until it can be shown to meet that policy. I'd be happy to work on expanding the article if reliable sources can be found; however, I myself have had some difficulty locating them, so if you have journalism, magazine articles, etc. about Brown that can help me verify this information, please post them here. Chubbles (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Assuming that you don't have any personal issues with the subject at-hand, it probably would have been best just to leave the article as it was or had been for the past 10 years. I didn't start it, or contribute much too it in the way of content before you came along. To be fair, there are many articles here on Wikipedia that are severly lacking in sources, but remain as is, relegating them, largely, to magazine fodder. Point is, Sam Brown had his place in musical history, and a typical reader should at least be able to gleem that from a first read-through.72.174.131.123 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are indeed many articles here that are severely lacking in sources; they are quality-control problems for the site, and a large number of editors are at work on those quality-control issues. This article, as a biography of a living person, is subject to stricter scrutiny than some of the others, and so I'm afraid Wikipedia editors in general will not share your assessment that it would be best to leave it as it was, because of that extra level of expectation. I'm happy to see this article accurately assert Brown's place in musical history for interested readers, just as soon as independent sources are found to verify the relevant information about him. Chubbles (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)