Talk:Hickory Wind

references

I've added references, and so am removing the 'references' tag. BuffaloSpringfield 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

stub tag

I've removed the stub tag, after reviewing WP:stub guidelines and be bold policy BuffaloSpringfield 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

disputed authorship

The actual author of Hickory Wind seems likely to be Sylvia Sammons, a blind singer-songwriter who began singing it in the early Sixties, and certainly by 1963, when Parsons visited the city. The second verse added by Bob Buchanan was not written by Parsons, so the original deception was probably that of Parsons alone. It may have been a honest mistake at first, since his various addictions made him an unstable witness, but it's also true that he claimed or hinted at co-authorship of at least one song, Honky Tonk Women, which was vigorously disputed by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. In any event, the copyright was purchased from Sammons and credit assigned by fiat, if not in fact. Among folk musicians of that era and area, Sammons is widely known to be the true author. You can find the dispute in many places on the web, but the most detailed seems to be at [Folklinks], Crediting Hickory Wind, written by David W. Johnson. -- Lee-Anne 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the above be included in some way into the article?Airproofing (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The above source doesn't qualify as WP:RS, so unless there's a better source for those claims they shouldn't be included in the article. Adam McMaster (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the authorship controversy has been added using the above links. Please discuss here. Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the user who added the "Authorship controversy" section. I must say that my own feeling is that the song was almost certainly written by Parsons and Buchanan. The lack of any physical or musical proof to support Sammons' claim as well as the scarcity of anyone who can corroborate her story (I think only two of her friends have come forward thus far), leads me to suspect that it's untrue. Plus, to me at least, Buchanan's detailed account of exactly how the song was written has the ring of truth to it. However, I felt that in the interest of an unbiased article, this authorship dispute should be mentioned, since it's an important issue and one that is being increasingly discussed amongst fans of Gram Parsons and The Byrds. I must also disagree with Adam McMaster's claim that the Folklinks source doesn't qualify as WP:RS. Folklinks is a well respected and reliable, third-party, publisher of roots music related articles and as such, I think it’s fine for Wikipedia purposes. Kohoutek1138 01:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

this is clearly the work of gram parsons, who ever authored the writing controversy has a vendetta against parsons or listened to someone who lied. I don't know how a blind woman can write a song about climbing trees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.232.72 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Sammons became blind at the age of six due to glaucoma, so she has childhood memories of being sighted, possibly even climbing trees. [Video interview with Sylvia Sammons] As was pointed out in the Folklinks article, she was born in South Carolina, so her depiction of the events of her childhood is real, where Parsons has no ties to South Carolina whatsoever, so the imputation of faux memories of South Carolina would be pure fabulation. To me, the song is interesting too, in that there is no visual imagery involved, but only feeling and odors. On a purely emotional level, it sounds to me like a song a woman might sing to her lover, and not at all a typical man's song, because it shows a vulnerability and position of social inferiority. How many men sing about an older woman as a lover? As a Parsons song, it's remarkably distinct from the rest of his oeuvre. And then there are the other accusations of his claiming more credit than was due. Lee-Anne (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One small but factual point: in the main entry, the use of the word "refuted" in describing the claims of Buchanan and Parsons should be "rebutted," since the meaning of "refuted" is to PROVE an argument wrong...; they mainly assert their view, not prove hers wrong.... Stephen Lee, Grand Forks, ND  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.20 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 

This section is filled with WP:SYNTH. The paragraph beginning with "Calling her claim further into doubt..." talks of "a woman with the same name, Sylvia Sammons" with no evidence this is the same Sammons. It is WP:OR to claim this is evidence of anything without a reference saying it is the same person. There is further original research in using that article to extrapolate what her age "must have been" and therefore deciding that it is proof of anything at all. I have removed it but the editor who added it, @Eldanger25:, keeps readding it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I am confused by your reasoning and will explain mine (and restore the edit with some clarifications in an effort to address your concerns): the so-called "authorship controversy" arose in 2002, roughly 35 years after the song was released, 30 years after Mr. Parsons's death, and nearly 40 years after the alleged act of song plagiarism.

The claim in this section, in essence, is that a blind female professional folk singer named Sylvia Sammons from South Carolina wrote the song circa 1963, and Mr. Parsons heard a live performance around the same time and, after waiting 4-5 years and making several recordings in the interim, recorded and published the song under his own name (and the name of a co-writer).

The article in question that you have been removing is from 1993 - 25 years after the song's release, and 10 years before Ms. Sammons's claims were made. The article is a profile of a woman with the same name, Sylvia Sammons, the same disability, blindness, and the same occupation, professional (or aspiring professional) folk singer. In the 1993 article, Ms. Sammons provides a different age and hometown than she claimed in 2002, and in particular provided a different professional history - she states she was a folk musician since roughly 1980, a dozen years after the song was published, than she provided 10 years later in claiming she was an adult and a live performer circa 1963, as part of the "authorship controversy."

You state that there must be a reference in the article stating "it is the same person." That seems to be an arbitrary rule in the context of an alleged controversy that arose decades after the events in question. If Ms. Sammons wished to claim authorship of a song written in the 1960s circa 2002, and if excerpts of interviews she gave circa 2002 are included, then contradictory comments credibly made by her in a published article 10 years earlier is and should be relevant.

I can certainly understand an effort to amend the paragraph if you think there is original research, but deleting the paragraph and reference entirely on the grounds that the author did not identify the subject as the source of a controversy that (1) did not occur for another decade, and (2) was related to a work of art published several decades prior, seems like overkill. Eldanger25 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no proof the Sammons in your article is the same Sammons who claimed authorship. You are the one making that assertion and that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. These are actual policies that govern what can and cannot be in articles. Unless and until you can find a reliable source that says this is the same person it cannot be in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

There is strong circumstantial evidence that it is the same person - name, identifying physical characteristic (blindness), occupation, gender. The information is located in a published, reliable source that was made during a relevant time period - after the events in question and before the belated claim of authorship was made.

In an effort to find common ground, I have amended the paragraph to cite the article and identify the inconsistencies and strong circumstantial evidence of it being the same person. I invite you to review the new edits, and consider, as stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research - "Organizing published facts and opinions that are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic . . . is not original research." Eldanger25 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on "circumstantial evidence" strong or otherwise. It requires verifiable reliable sources. You are talking about real people here and you can't make up claims that seem probably accurate. I invite you to read WP:SYNTH specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." You are creating a narrative based on your own reading of sources that never explicitly claim what you are saying they claim. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR is an essay, not policy. WP:OR which is policy states "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." Your claim is synthesis as you are using a source that precedes any claim of authorship to personally refute a later claim of authorship. This is original research on your part. Other editors have removed your OR before as well and yet you keep adding synth material based on your own views of what is or isn't likely to be true. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not personally refuting anything. An individual made a claim in 2002 - and I will note that the link at FN 10, the primary source of Ms. Sammons's claims for this section, is broken and cannot be retrieved or verified as of 2023, yet 2 paragraphs based on that source remain on that page - about a 1968 recording.

A 1993 article (likely after digitization) became available online after 2002 and is directly relevant to this topic. I edited the paragraph to simply list relevant data in that published source.

If I gave an interview today claiming to have written the first draft of the screenplay for "Ghostbusters" in 1982, which Dan Aykroyd stole from my briefcase in a coffee shop at the time, and it turned out that I had given a newspaper interview 10 years ago stating I'd never been Hollywood in my life until 2002, the latter source is directly related to my claim of authorship and should be a part of the so-called "controversy," even though the article did not identify me as the same person who made a claim for the first time 10 years later.

We are talking about "real people here," including someone accused of fraudulent conduct 30 years after his death, by someone who - at a time when she had no motive to lie - told a different story about herself to a newspaper. Her own words rebut her later tale. If the relevant facts from the 1993 article from the Orlando Sentinel is not included on policy grounds, then really this entire section should be deleted, particularly as the primary source for the claim, folklinks is unverifiable/a broken link.

I propose the following solution: restore the most recent, consolidated sentence about the 1993 article in my edit dated 15:31, but delete the preceding sentence from the prior paragraph "although many people have chosen to dismiss.....," which I did not write in any event. Eldanger25 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You cannot use a 1993 article to refute a 2002 claim. This is textbook WP:SYNTH. Your "solutions" always boil down to "let me just add the information that violates policy because I want to." Honestly, the whole section probably should be deleted as it is based on a single source and that is undue weight. When I google "Sylvia Sammons Hickory Wind" I just get blogs and forums repeating this article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not opposed to deleting the whole section, if you agree. Again, not only is it "undue weight" - which I agree with - but the link is broken.

We disagree in good faith about the policy - I believe policy allows one to place facts/statements in a 1993 article alongside facts/statements in a 2002 claim when both relate to a 1968 work of art. I do agree that the original paragraph I wrote should have been amended, but - if this section remains - I do not think the information in the 1993 source should be removed entirely.

I will comment on the "dispute resolution" page you linked to from here - thanks for the civil and informative dialogue. Eldanger25 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hickory Wind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106132022/http://byrds.churchyear.net/covers.html to http://byrds.churchyear.net/covers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Authorship Controversy

Should the following paragraph (see below) be added after the second paragraph in the Authorship Controversy section? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds.

Please answer Yes or No or the equivalent in the Survey with a brief statement. Please do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.

Survey

• No It is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to combine sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in either one. Using a reference which predates the claim of authorship to refute the claim of authorship is blatant SYNTH. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. See my argument below.Eldanger25 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• No - agree with ThaddeusSholto that it is OR and SYNTH (see my own OR below in discussion). And even though the question isn't asked in this RfC, I think that whole "controversy" section should be removed as UNDUE. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 03:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

To reiterate my argument here: The paragraph beginning with "A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002" shows that this is SYNTH. You cannot use an article which precedes the 2002 claim to refute the 2002 claim. This is original research on the part of the editor who added it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that because it cannot. It cannot refute what hadn't yet happened.

WP:SYNTH specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is exactly what is happening with this paragraph. The editor even adds their own conclusion with "or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds." This is not in the 1993 article because that article has nothing to do with Hickory Wind or its authorship.

It is also OR to even claim this is the same Sylvia Sammons. There is no way to know that as the 1993 article about Sylvia Sammons and the 2002 article about Sylvia Sammons describe people of different ages; Eldanger25 even admits on the article talk page that it is "circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which is definitely WP:OR. Again, the policy states that an editor cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the original research part should not be included, but I do think some general info regarding Sammons' background could be included (if the article refers to the same Sylvia Sammons of course). 23impartial (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I provided reasons in favor of adding the paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hickory_Wind/RFC_on_Authorship Eldanger25 (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I will also copy what I wrote at the attached link:

From a 10,000 foot view, the section to which the proposed paragraph applies – titled “Authorship Controversy” – should be deleted as a quintessential minority viewpoint from a single source given undue weight (up to and including multiple detailed paragraphs drawn from that single source). A song was first recorded and published (by two co-authors) in 1968, and 35 years later, an article appeared claiming a blind female folksinger from the southeastern United States actually wrote the song, and one of the registered authors (who died in 1973) plagiarized it from her (apparently by listening to her publicly perform it in 1963 at a coffeeshop). No legal or other proceedings were ever brought, and no followup investigation appears to have been done beyond the late arriving 2002 claim. This is a quintessential minority viewpoint.

At some point after 2002, another relevant source emerged (likely via digitization of newspaper archives): a 1993 newspaper profile of a blind female folksinger from the southeastern U.S. with the same first and last name as the originator of the 2002 “authorship controversy.” In that interview, the woman – who is almost assuredly the same person, though the 1993 article could not confirm such a fact, as it predated by 9 years the initial 2002 claim about authorship of a 1968 work of art - provided an age for herself and professional history (she boasted to having been a folksinger since roughly 1981) that are inconsistent with comments made in the 2002 source.

I will try not to rehash policy arguments made elsewhere during this discussion, except to say: If the 2002 data is included, I propose the 1993 data should be as well. It is relevant to the alleged controversy, and the proposed paragraph draws from a single source and then uses simple calculations – which are allowed under OR – without specifically asserting the 1993 blind female folksinger is the same person as the 2002 blind female folksinger with the same name. Prior inconsistent statements that are credibly attributable to a claimant are admissible in courts of law around the world, but not Wikipedia?

If the OR policy simply means that no relevant data that happens to precede a so-called “controversy” is allowed because it occurred prior to and thus did not formally address the “controversy” itself, then the policy should be amended as too rigid. Otherwise, the current OR policy privileges controversial, minority viewpoints that, by their very nature of being a minority viewpoint, did not take hold enough to be subjected to subsequent scrutiny in later sources.

Again, the proper solution may simply be to delete the section itself, but if it remains in place (and the singled-sourced minority viewpoint “controversy” is provided multiple expansive paragraphs), then the proposed paragraph discussing the 1993 profile should also be included.

Finally, let me say that I have enjoyed this sincere, vigorous debate, and learned things in the process. Thanks to all. Eldanger25 (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Let me preface my comment first by quoting from WP:OR - This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources.

The online version of the 1993 Orlando Sentinel article doesn't include any photographs of Sylvia Sammons, but I was able to find a print version with a photo of her at Newspapers.com. And I have to say there is a striking resemblance between the two women: 1993 Orlando article and the 2002 folklinks article. Here are two more articles from the Orland Sentinel with a photograph of Sammons from 1994, and 1996 (same photo from 1994, but close up). And apparently, she was granted the right to sing there in Florida, because there is a boatload of articles from various Florida newspapers from around that same time period with articles about her singing and scheduled performances.

Researching further back, an article about her in Highlands NC singing on balcony in 1998, 1990 on the balcony, here she is in 1990 woodworking in Highlands NC, and then further back to 1981 talking about her singing and how she lives in Greenville SC. And then further back to 1968 (with photo), from Greenville SC about her singing in Greenville, and being a former student at Furman, and how she had written some original songs (no mention of Hickory Wind). And then even further back to 1964, 1964 sophomore at Furman and 1963, showing she was a student at Furman University in Greenville SC. So if we are to believe the 2002 folklinks article which says: she was singing the song in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1963, she would have been a college student at the time, aged 18-19 years old, which tracks with this quote from the folklinks article - She must have been about 18, from L. Beatrice Hutzler.

Is it plausible that this is the same Sylvia Sammons from the 2002 folklinks article, my gut says yeah, more than likely it is, or in the alternative — it is a hell of a coincidence with two blind women named Sylvia Sammons, that look remarkably alike, with both having the same connections to the same geographical locations, both connected with woodworking, and both of them singing on a balcony. But, this is all original research and can not be used in the article.

And now getting back to WP:P&G, quite frankly, that entire section is UNDUE. Who says it is a "controversy", I don't see any independent sources making that claim, all I see is one source, and doing a search for "folklinks.com" on WP, shows it is only used one time in the Encyclopedia, in this article, so is it even a reliable source? And if folklinks is the only source making this claim, then it is not a significant viewpoint published by multiple reliable sources and that entire section should be removed as UNDUE. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 03:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional research. Without belaboring the particulars of the various claims and site policies, I agree that the section at issue is Undue and will remove it. I do think there is a "letter over spirit" issue here w/r/t the original research policy, but perhaps removing the section on Undue grounds is a more effective solution anyway, since to your point, if it had been that much of a "controversy" there'd be more independent sources discussing and evaluating it besides Wikipedia. Eldanger25 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

References