Draft talk:Harvey Brittain

Disclosure and Additional Context on Harvey Brittain Wikipedia Article

Hello, Wikipedia Community, I wish to disclose information about my involvement with the Wikipedia article on Harvey Brittain and provide additional context to ensure full transparency in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Initial Approach in 2021: I was first approached in 2021 to assist in creating a Wikipedia page for Harvey Brittain. After assessing the available material, I advised the client that Brittain did not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements at that time due to insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources.

Reassessment in December 2023: I was reapproached in December 2023, and upon reviewing new developments, including a hit record and articles in high-authority publications, I conducted a fresh assessment. I concluded that the notability threshold, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, was likely met, leading me to agree to undertake the editing assignment.

Nature of Involvement: My involvement is in a freelance capacity. While I have no personal connection to Harvey Brittain or his management team, this is part of a commercial arrangement.

No Payment to Date: As of now, I have not received any payment for my contributions to the article. However, it is a commercial arrangement with the potential for payment upon completion of the work.

Commitment to Wikipedia's Standards: I am dedicated to ensuring that my contributions adhere to Wikipedia's content and sourcing standards, providing factual, verifiable, and neutral content.

Openness to Feedback: I am aware of the importance of neutrality and verifiability in Wikipedia articles. I welcome feedback from the community and am open to suggestions to ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia's high standards.

Future Updates: I will provide regular updates if there are changes to my commercial arrangement or the nature of my involvement with the subject of the article.

I appreciate your attention to this disclosure. My goal is to contribute constructively while upholding the values and standards of the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your understanding and guidance. Best regards, Richard Koret (rkoret) Rkoret (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rkoret: Thank you for the transparency. Many of the sources used in the article were/are SEO/Paid Placement or primary sources. Given the paid nature of your involvement, do not use this kind of sourcing in the future as it gives the impression of trying to falsify coverage. Many of the sources I left are likely more non-disclosed advertorials in the kinds of "magazines" that are known for that. In cases like this, where blackhat SEO is already involved, you'll need to stick to sources that are very, very clearly reliable and idependent of the subject. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thanks for the serious and constructive professional answer. Let me see if I can address some of the sourcing issues. The three hard references that made me agree to take on the gig and think it would pass notability are

1. The Honest single reaching itunes top 50 in pop. I have a capture of the chart and a plaque from iTunes with the date September 11 2023 that can't be faked. I can post it or send it if you need to see.

2. Billboard and USA Today are both high authority and not paid media, to the best of my knowledge. Just now, in response to your removal of the two, I asked the client (Harvey's PR rep) to explain the provenance of these two pieces. This is what he responded (I give you verbatim because you appreciate transparency):

"An article with USA Today and Billboard came about shortly after the charting of "Honest". Harvey‘s name has become especially well known within the music industry in recent months after the involvement of RCA (one of the world‘s biggest record labels and one of four flagship labels of Sony Music Entertainment) Lee Child’s (Jack Reachers series) input into Harvey’s career has also been tremendous, and so his support of Harvey creates a story that is moving and incredibly inspiring. It is exceptionally rare for a writer of that caliber (who has sold over 200 million copies) to want to support a young artist. Child saw huge potential and extraordinary talent and wanted to be involved in his early career. Writers of these high authority sites are in frequent communication with execs and teams at major labels (like RCA) and so when pointed towards this information, Billboard & USA Today both decided independently to cover Harvey‘s journey so far in article form."

I followed up and confirmed the PR rep's understanding that no money changed hands for this, that it was organic, and the typical influencer mutual favors that makes the music industry go around. It was NOT pay for play. I don't think that USA Today or Billboard do business like that, and thus should be accepted on Wiki.

As a journalist and editor, I agree with you : many of the review sites are just cribbing arguably plagiarizing off the Billboard in-depth piece for background and then add their two cents about the music. But I think pretty harmless, not blackhat, and thus OK.

So Sam, may I ask you to reconsider the exclusion of Billboard and USAToday? My considered opinions is that they are legit, organic and journalistic, not paid promotions. If so I would fill any still missing citations, keep it in draft and let you have another look.

Glad to get your feedback, and really appreciate your not speedily deleting. I will make all needed changes as you advise.

Thanks again. Richard @rkoret Rkoret (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Both billboard and usatoday absolutely do paid placement. They're typically careful to separate it from the normal reliable content on the sites. Unfortunately, given the dire times for most publishers, even strong companies are leveraging their brand to create more revenue opportunities.

In the case of Billboard, "This article was written in partnership with No Fortune" and is linked to Ascend Agency. The material is specifically noted as "Partner Content", and written by a person connected to Ascend. This is not, in any way, organic - it's as manufactured as it gets.

The usatoday piece is clearly labeled as part of the publication's contributor blog posting service, similar to the one garbage utilized by Forbes. There is a clear disclaimer that "members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content". Kyle is a writer for Ascend Agency again. I'm presuming that's the group you're working with, or that they're tied to.

I'm not one to mince words; your contacts are flat-out lying to you, and your inability to critically evaluate PR nonsense means you should not be doing any kind of COI editing here. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Your points about these citations are well-taken, Sam. I didn’t notice those qualifiers and disclaimers. Is there something that can be done to rescue this? The kid did break the iTunes top 50, he does have talent, he has a strong social following. What is needed to pass the notability threshold? If I find bonafide citations and/or eliminate unsupported statement will that suffice. In any case I thank you for your time and eagle eye. I learned something! 2001:44C8:4611:2724:DC52:DA6D:9379:D721 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You're claiming that he appeared on a list of top 50 streamed songs for a specific streaming service, in a specific region, in a specific genre and it updates hourly? There seems to even be services that "guarantee" entering the list, and that sell plaques. I'm sure he's talented, and I'm sure he has a wonderful, yet ethically-challenged talent agency, but come on. I fear there's not much else I can do for you here - it's not a good use of my volunteer time to coach people who are here to advocate and not to contribute. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sam, I really appreciate that you're a professional and talented editorial gatekeeper, and you have contributed both to my knowledge and the quality of the page. I think you see that my editorial writing is modest, factual and not promotional, I used only the sources which you kindly allowed to pass, and now it's a decent looking page without any real violations, created in good faith. I candidly acknowledge you are a better gatekeeper than I , because I had assumed that even blogger contributions on a high authority site were OK, but you rightly removed these and I learned something. I will watch out and improve in the future, and I appreciate the time you put into this. I also put real time and effort and the result candidly is better than many comparable Wiki pages. Would you allow this to be published, or is there something more I need to do at this stage? Many thanks! @rkoret Rkoret (talk) 08:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. As noted, the rest of the sources were garbage as well at a quick glance; I'll dig in to it more deeper later today. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As requested.

• "Earmilk" is a hot mess these days; many of the "writers" are just PR agents with zero editorial oversight; essentially a "guest posting blog" now. The piece used was written by a Natalie Patrick, a public relations agent operating NatalieAmerica PR.
• "channelx94" was, again, a paid placement "written in partnership with No Fortune". Literally links to the Billboard advertorial we spoke of previously.
• "lyricallemonade.com" is a group blog. The blog post was written by a PR agent from Muse Media ("a one-stop digital media solution for all creative content and marketing needs").
• "lep.co.uk" is literally just a picture of the subject at a small local event. This link has zero to do with "His classic jazz inspirations include Herbie Hancock, Oscar Peterson, and Chick Corea" that you've attached it to.
• "thesource", which appears to have once been a reliable source, but I'm not sure now: there's a ton of traffic for unmarked paid placement by SEO/PR flacks on the usual pay-per-hour sites. Given that it's written like a press release, with the obligatory insta and spotify links, I see no reason to use this on a BLP.
• "headliner" - I'm not sure about. Lengthy interview that was clearly done remotely, but no indications of paid placement that I can see, or abusive history from that publication.

You've also added two images that have vague licenses - please use WP:VRT and work with them to grant specific licenses directly from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

I fear that your client or their representatives have again not been honest with you. If you continue to add promotional material that is very clearly blackhat paid placement, your account will likely be blocked. Again, please be much more careful with your additions. I realize that you have accepted a job, and now have a serious conflict of interest, but that does not give you permission to violate our policies to assist your client. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)