User talk:PBysshe

Hello. The information I am including is correct. I have been working with the approval of the Hawes family on a feature film adaptation of Raise Up Off Me for more than five years. During that time I carefully went through Hampton's personal archive (at his late widow's house), as well as the Contemporary Records files. I also interviewed family members and Hawes' fellow musicians extensively. I would very much appreciate if you would allow this information to stand.
 * It may be correct, but (bizarre as it may seem) Wikipedia doesn't work with what is correct. It requires reliable sources and does not allow original research (please click on these to read them). What you describe (and I envy your access to these things and being involved in that way) is the use of unpublished information, much of which is classed as primary. These shouldn't be used as sources on Wikipedia. If you were to get what you've found published, then it could be used. The options at this point are: a) the article stays as it was, with information sourced; b) the rest of the article stays as it was, and the bits you changed also stay, but with each bit having a tag next to it. I don't think (m)any editors would be happy with option b. What mustn't happen is that your original research-based information gets presented to the reader as coming from a reliable source, which is what happens if you add it to the information that is covered by (in the edit area) formatting, which is what you have done up to now. EddieHugh (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

What you have changed in not different in meaning from what I had originally written; I wrote approximately 3/4s of the original entry. What I would request is that you respect the integrity of a writer's work, especially one who has dedicated a good portion of their life for a number of years to the subject, and allow me to change it back. This is a human thing, to a technical one. Thank you.
 * It's not a technical thing, but it is about the integrity of Wikipedia (not yours, which I don't doubt). Wikipedia has requirements related to sourcing, which I linked to above. So, let's check... What's the source for "twice the mandatory minimum for comparable crimes"? Your edit puts it inside a sentence that is sourced to the Daily Beast article, but that information is not in that article. That's a problem. A big one. Earlier, you removed a 'citation needed' tag from "In 2004, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution declaring November 13th "Hampton Hawes Day". That's a problem: the only time anyone should remove such a tag is when adding a source, or removing both the tag and the text it relates to. Do you have a source for it? You also removed the source (the Owens book) for "Hawes' playing style developed in the early 1950s". That's a problem: we don't remove sources unless there's a good reason. You then added "and was a unique, standards-based melding of bebop and the blues"; what's your source for that? So... sourcing problems can pile up quickly! The other differences are about preference in wording, so those are not important. But the sourcing: for all someone's knowledge, experience and sincerity, on Wikipedia, if there aren't reliable sources to back up what they write, their edits won't meet with the approval of other editors. EddieHugh (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you didn't respond or make the changes to restore sourcing integrity, I've made the required changes. Please don't change them back – I don't want to escalate this. EddieHugh (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please just allow the sentence to remain about 'struggling with a heroin addiction' rather than citing the age when he started, which I feel is personal information that is not needed. I will not change anything else.
 * Ok, let's try that. EddieHugh (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)