Talk:Hank Williams/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Tribute

Is the rememberance photo supposed to be a joke? I know he was an alchoholic, but it seems kinda throwing it in his face. Besides, did he drink Budweiser? 63.226.28.130 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please delete that "remembrance" photo. Design 13:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Older comments

I am sure I listened to a record in 1952 that had Back Street Affair on the flip side of Your Cheatin Heart by Hank Williams. Everyone else says I am wrong. Could Audrey Mae Sheppard have sung it?

The lyrics:

Yes I thought that you were true When I fell in love with you But as time passed on I learned how much you cared. Yes I learned you had a home and a true forgiving wife. But I can't live down the back street affair.


It really bothers me that no one else heard of the song before it was recorded by Webb Pierce and yet I know I was singing it in 1953. If you know anything about it please contact me at [email protected]. Thanks

--- That was Kitty Wells. ([email protected]) --- I have heard that Hank sang Back Street Affair while with the Hayride.One story I have heard is that Webb Pierce complemented Hank on his new record when Hank told him he had not recorded the song. Then said something to the effect that it would be a number 1 record if anyone had the balls to record it. Another part of the story is that Fred Rose did not want Hank to record it. Milto 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace

I've found differing information about Ol' Hank's birthplace. There are 8 or 9 Mount Olives in Alabama, and the original article did not specify which one. After tracking it down, there is a Mount Olive in Butler County, Alabama, which is only a few miles from the other birthplace often listed in Georgiana, Alabama, also in Butler County.

The generic Mount Olive, Alabama link shows it as being in Jefferson County, Alabama near Birmingham, and far north of Butler County (near Mobile).

I made the assumption that this is the correct one and made the edit to say so. If anyone has more info, please make the changes, but provide some more info on it.

Death Story

The explanation of his death needs to be re-written in a more coherent manner. --Neenerhead 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)



The chauffer has also been quoted as saying that the police officer let them go on after the comment about how the passenger looked dead and that the chauffeur was not to discover Hank's death till he pulled over at an all-night gas station in West Virginia, where the attendant told him that he was, in fact, dead. He has also been quoted as wondering whether he was in fact dead by the time that they left the hotel, as he remembered carrying him into the back seat of the car and that he seemed essentially be dead weight. The officer who pulled them over is also quoted as having second-guessed himself for years as to whether he should have insisted that help be called immediately; perhaps Hank was still alive at the time of the stop, but in a coma. One thing that all agree on is that the way it is portrayed by George Hamilton in the awful movie Your Cheatin' Heart is not the way that it was!

Rlquall 21:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

clarification?

it is unclear, from the text, when he got fired from the grand ole opry. can anyone clear this up?

In October of 1952, Williams was fired from the Grand Old Opry, and rejoined the Louisiana Hayride. On October 18, 1952, he married Billie Jean Jones Eshliman. A ceremony was held at the New Orleans Municipal Auditorium and 14,000 people bought tickets to attend.
His second marriage did not reform him. He missed numerous concerts, or was too drunk to play, and was fired from the Grand Ole Opry, told not to return until he was sober.

thanks --Heah 06:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

When some is born and given the name John Smith, for example, the name on his birth certificate reads "John Smith".
If he later has a son he names "John Smith, Jr.", the name on the child's birth certificate is "John Smith, Jr." The father's birth certificate remains the same; it's not changed to read "John Smith, Sr."
The first person named keeps his name as it was given.
Sorry, but the senior John Smith is John Smith, not John Smith, Sr. and the junior John Smith is John Smith, Jr.
It's the same with Hank Williams, the given name of the senior of the singers; he was "given" (or used - take your choice) the name "Hank Williams" and his son was given the name "Hank Williams, Jr. Nowhere did anything change about the senior Hank Williams being anything except "Hank Williams".
To the author of the above comment – first of all, please sign your comments with four tildes ("~" four times). Second, your problem appears not to be so much with people using the "Sr." suffix with the original Hank Williams, but the general practice of people using "Sr." to refer to a father whose son shares his same name – in your example, "John Smith Sr." being called such to distinguish him from his son, "John Smith Jr." Indeed, the birth certificate does not change, but sometimes it is vitally important to know which John Smith we're talking about (e.g., "John Smith Sr." was promoted to vice president of XYZ Co. today" or "John Smith Jr. was arrested for drunk driving"). If you want to discuss that matter further, please go to the discussion pages for senior or suffix (name).
That said, as I and others have stated below, many people refer to Hank Williams as "Hank Williams Sr." not in a show of disrespect to his music or legacy, but to distinguish him from his son Hank Williams Jr. and his grandson Hank Williams III. The stature or relative talents of each of the singers is irrelevant in this case. If you want to discuss this matter further, please feel free to start a discussion thread at Pure Country Music. Thank you [[Briguy52748 20:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)]]

His name is not "Sr."

you are not cool




I deeply abhor and regret the use of the term "Sr." when applied to Hank Williams. There was only one Hank Williams, and his talent and stature far exceeds the talent and stature of his children and grandchildren. To use the term "Sr." implies to me that people equate or at least compare the son and/or grandson with the father/grandfather, and no equation or valid comparison can be made by anyone familiar with the talents of all three generations. Anyone who confuses the father/grandfather with the son and/or grandson does an injustice to the talent and legacy of Hank Williams.

I can understand why Randall Hank Williams and Shelton Hank Williams chose, or allowed others to choose for them, to use the names Hank Williams Jr. and and Hank Williams III. The use of the name "Hank Williams" helps them sell music, and he IS their father or grandfather. I cannot understand why fans and writers and encyclopedia operators chose to differentiate the father/grandfather with the demeaning comparative term of "Sr." for a country music orginal. There was only ONE Hank Williams.

Cetainly Hank was a unique talent. That having been said, it is now necessary to disambiguate him from his offspring. Dale Earnhardt, Sr., was another unique Southern talent, but he will forever now be known as such, regardless of "fairness". One could argue that John D. Rockerfeller, Sr., was likewise a unique business talent, as was Marshall Field I. But as their offspring achieved tremendous fame, somewhat on their own, albeit with a tremendous headstart given them by their great ancestors. This is just the way that it is. Rlquall 22:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why Sr is deemed "demeaning."
I agree with the two responses to the anonymous writer, who contends that the use of Hank Williams Sr. is offensive. I agree that the elder Hank remains one of the most gifted performers/songwriters/personalities in country music history. However, many historians and critics – well respected ones, I might point out – as well as fans also agree that Hank Williams Jr. is also a deeply gifted songwriter and performer. Look at his legacy: "Family Tradition," "Whisky Bent and Hell Bound," "All My Rowdy Friends" (and it's follow-up, "All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight"), "A Country Boy Can Survive," "Country State of Mind," and many, many others. He tapped into our social conscience, which is much more than can be said about other country music stars.
Also, Hank Jr. has been an innovator, successfully fusing rock music with the outlaw to create a sound that remains prevalent in country music today.
And let's not compare apples to oranges here – Hank Sr. (and his fans) is from a different era than Hank Jr. (and his fans). Yes, there is only one original Hank Williams, but Rlquall is correct in comparing this situation with Rockerfeller and Field. Hank's son and ancestors have achieved their own fame thanks to their talents, and unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, deserve to perform under Hank Williams Jr. and Hank Williams III, respectively. Using the name Hank Williams Sr. is merely meant to differentiate the father from his son and grandson, nothing more. [[Briguy52748 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)]]
shut up.
History shows that anonymous user (IP No. 132.162.250.157) wrote the above comment. Please remember to use four tildes (~) to sign your comments. [[Briguy52748 14:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]]

"Unfaithfulness"

It is perhaps unfair to say that Hank was "unfaithful" to his second wife. at least in the strictest marital sense, as the article notes that Jett was born five days after Hank's death, and that his second marriage had occured only less than three months earlier. His enconters with Bobbie Jett were, obviously, about nine months earlier. This is not an attempt to enshirne Hank as some sort of moral paragon but only to suggest that he, like everyone else, should be dealt with fairly. Rlquall 22:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You bring up a very valid point. Since he was divorced at the time his daughter Jett was concieved, there is nothing adulterous about her conception and the use of the term 'unfaithful' in relation to the story of her birth is innapropriate. Can you come up with a better way to sum up that year of his life which will account for Jett's conception in a more tasteful way?

I might say "Some months before his second marriage, he had a relationship with Bobby Jett that resulted in the eventual birth of his daughter, Jett, shortly after his death."

You like? Lisapollison 12:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC) That sounds apt. Please make the edit. Design 14:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

The article lists three wives:

1. Bryony Bonds. No mention of dissolution of marriage. Furthermore, this name has no google hits apart from wikipedia mirrors.

2. Audrey Williams. Divorced.

3. Billie Jean Jones Eshliman. This marriage is referred to as his second, not third.

If anyone can clarify his marital history it would be appreciated. BrainyBroad 13:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

i was also very confused about all this . . . --Heah (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

According to www.hankwilliams.com, which bills itself as the official Hank Williams website, Williams was only married twice: to Audrey Mae Sheppard (December 1944 - May 1952) and to Billie Jean Jones Eshliman (from October 1952 until his death). There was no Bryony Bonds. -- Infamous30 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hank's Death

After Hank died I have heard that his physician was convicted of some sort of crime related to Hanks death. Does anyone know anything about that accusation.

I think it's one of the rumors surrounding his death. BTW, one anonymous user keeps adding a ton of plagiarized rumors to this article about Hank's death. Let's keep the death section factual and referenced (since there are so many rumors out there about the death). Best, --Alabamaboy 00:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Could someone please elaborate on the significance of the quotation in the introduction regarding the type of songs they used to sing? I don't really understand what it's in reference to, and I would imagine many readers feel the same way.

--- It's a stupid quote. In fact, "Mother's not dead, she's only a-sleeping" was originally recorded (as far as I know) by Charlie Monroe's band and later by Bill Monroe's band. It's a great song, and less lugubrious than a lot of Hank's material. ([email protected]) ---

I think there's a better way to make the point than that quote. I'm in favour of deleting it. Design 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Death

the true history of the death of Hank Williams was written by

D.B. Mays group moderator of KerryEdwards2004 with over 2000 members. He is an eye witness to the death of Hank Williams and the continuing cover-up of the circumstances of Hanks death by Bluefield WV authorities, music city and the driver Andrew Carr who drove around with a dead Hank for over 12 hours before reporting his death.

If wikipedia persists in removing my posts about the real story of Hank's death I will personally make an issue out of it with every progressive and democratic group that I am associated with--which are very numerous indeed. If my story is considered suspect then I encourage everyone to look at the complete absence of one day (the day Hank died in Carr's and other music city accounts). I am perfectly willing to take a lie detector test--something Carr and the cover-up crew will never do.

the actual death:


The information that the anonymous user (with ISP number starting in 4.249...) keeps adding to this article is vandalism. First, the informtion is rumor with no references to support it. Second, the addition appears to be directly cut and pasted from another source, making it likely a copyright violation. If this user disputes either of these charges please post on this talk page why the information is true and provide a reference. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Alamabamboy you are a very stupid hillbilly indeed if you think that being an eyewitness to all that transpired inside King Tut and the death of Hank in the driveway on Dec 31, 1952 makes me anomynous or a vandal. My name is DB Mays [email protected] and I am not the only person who witnessed Hank around Bluefield that day. When Hank's death was finally reported the next day in Oak Hill it was reported by both Surface and Carr. Many witnesses saw Surface wearing Hank's white jacket around Bluefield for many years after. In you story you have left the entire day of Dec 31 empty. Surface and the story of how he got involved is entirely left out of your account. You are part of the cover-up which began immediately after his death......I only resorted to pasting when my original posts with my name clearly marked were erased by you and your information control buddies........For one thing I would like to see Carr do a lie detector test concerning lost articles and veracity of his story. I am willing to do the same. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Terraplane (talk • contribs)

Sounds like you have an interesting story to tell on all of this. Unfortunately, though Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing original research. Because of this, you can't place this info in the article. I wish you the best in submitting to a magazine or newspaper, though. I'd be interested to read the entire account when you publish it. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


only when America is subjected to the outrageous justifications of the Bushreich could such a tortured justification for censorship of real history be offered as that of your alabamaboy.....an eyewitness account of a historical event by a participant/witness is not ORIGINAL RESEARCH......check your job description .....no one made your czar of the truth.......WIKIPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENCYOPEDIA WITH PUBLIC INPUT......you ought to be working for some organization like fox news with a similar geobbles mindset —the preceding unsigned comment is by 4.249.225.191 (talk • contribs) (sock of Terraplane talk • contribs)

As i outlined on your talk page and as Alabamaboy stated above, all sources must be cited from published accounts. This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with accepted standards of verifiability here at wikipedia, which i again request that you read. Find an article and cite it, as i suggested before. as far as this encyclopedia is concerned, your eyewitness account is original research. I know that i don't doubt what you saw, and from his posts above, i don't beleive alabamaboy does either; but your eyewitness accounts are not up to wikipedia standards of verifiability. I'd also like to request (again) that you refrain from the name calling; it is unproductive and frowned upon, and may eventually result in your editing privileges being temporarily revoked. thank you. --Heah talk 01:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the guy's story. I won't question the accepted standards.Milto 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Terraplane - nobody wishes to censor you. It's just that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyolopedias conform to certain standards with regards to information. All you need to do is get a sympathetic editor to publish an interview with you in a magazine, in a newspaper or even in a small press publication or chapbook and then, by accepted standards, we could refer to that source. I hope you understand.

What's to stop me from saying I saw Hank Williams that day and posting it here? Nothing besides the usage standards. I'm sure that over the years you have shared your information with various writers and researchers. If just one of them quoted you in print,or referred to your story in print, we could use that reference in the article. Perhaps you already have something we can use. Just refer us to it here on this page and we'll look at it.Lisapollison 12:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hank's co-writers

I understand that some sources claim that in addition to writing whole songs, that: Hank would co-write (especially with his publisher Fred Rose (musician); he would buy songs outright; his co-writers sometimes received royalties but not credit (some sources say Moon Mullican with Jambalaya (song)). Could someone please add this. Fred Rose was a powerful part of Hank's career & is not yet mentioned in this article. Design 13:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Luke the Drifter; Lovesick Blues.

Makes sense to me to merge the two, the Drifter songs are essential to the Hank Williams canon and shed more light on Hank's life and character.


I am confused by the reference to Rex Griffin as the composer(?) of 'Lovesick Blues' at the beginning of the Hank Williams article. In the 'Lovesick Blues" article Emmitt Miller is creditted and there is no mention of Griffin. I'm no country music academic, so I can't say who wrote the song, but it looks as though Emmitt Miller was it's creator. True?

And so, who's Rex Griffin?

Thanks,

====Brian Kalbfleisch [email protected]

The second marriage killed him?

"When the seventeen year-old chauffeur pulled over at an all-night service station in Oak Hill, West Virginia, he discovered that Williams was unresponsive and becoming rigid. Upon closer examination, it was discovered that Hank Williams was dead. He had been married for the second time for less than three months." Sounds like a joke. Perhaps someone can edit this better? --Profero 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

he was very goood at his job

he was very goood at his job

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hank's other alleged child

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence between people who knew, or worked for, or are related to Hank that a man named Lewis "Butch" Fitzgerald of Montgomery, AL is a child of Hank's, born out of wedlock in 1943, which would make him the eldest child of Hank. Butch has a grandson named Ricky Fitzgerald (b. 1998) who looks and sounds like a Hank Williams Jr. clone and is a professional musician and has gone by the stage names Hank Williams IV & Hank Williams 5 at various times, and he also sounds a lot like Hank as well when he does his songs. There are multiple pictures floating around the web of Hank sitting with a child purported to be Butch and taken circa mid-1940's before Hank Jr. was born. Butch is poor and cannot afford a legal battle to contest the estate, and thus far hasn't presented any proof other than anecdotal stories and the pictures. There is no mention of this in the article, and there is no ironclad evidence as the detractors of Mr. Fitzgerald will point out, but being that there is a claimant who's presenting evidence, something should be written about it with citations.PhilMaglassup (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Colin Escott's biography is the one reliable source I can find that mentions Lewis "Butch" Fitzgerald's claims, but given that Fitzgerald has no evidence other than rumors and hearsay, I don't think they merit a mention in the article. Carlstak (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

There are other articles in Wikipedia which have discussions about people who make claims to a birthright who have little, if any proof. Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia is just one article which includes claimants who believe they are Anastasia and survived. Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, who has a much-disputed claim to the throne of England also has article which discusses his claim. There's also the many people who are claimed to be the real William Shakespeare who are mentioned in his entry. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned, at least to discredit the claim.PhilMaglassup (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not to add the claim, since we got the source. It pretty much went over my head at the time I worked on the article a few years back. I do think the entry needs a little cleanup as a side commentary. Since it has been promoted to GA there have been some messy edits, and claims that need citations. I'll get to it the next few days.--GDuwenHoller! 19:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Working on the cleanup as of now, the work to be done is not really overwhelming and citations need to be added (and some unnecessary things added posterior to its GAN need to be removed as well).--GDuwenHoller! 20:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I worked it into the "Personal life" section. I also added a mention to the claims that Lillie Williams ran a brothel in her boarding house. Fitzgerald made the claims, and they also are addressed by author Chet Flippo and Colin Escott. I obviously mentioned its denial by family friends, but it is worthy to be mentioned somewhere in the article.--GDuwenHoller! 20:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of Hank's name

Hello,

I edited Hiram to "Hiriam" because this is how it is spelled on Williams' birth certificate as shown on Ken Burns' Country Music doc. It was changed back. I may be wrong, but is there any source that confirms it's spelled "Hiram" and not "Hiriam"? Thanks

His birth certificate does indeed spell the name as "Hiriam", but the bibliography (such as in this example) indicate that it was misspelled by whoever wrote the certificate.--GDuwenHoller! 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Genres

"Honky-tonk music" redirects to country music; "Western music" is listed as a subgenre of country music. Shouldn't just country music be listed for generality? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hank Williams, Native American Musician

Hank was a mixed Native of Muscogee and Cherokee lineage and it seems that every few months someone comes in to purge it from his article even though it is fairly common knowledge, widely written about, and he has received honors in recognition as such. 174.85.59.117 (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Eisenhower endorsement relevancy?

Of all the things that could be written about Williams, the fact that endorsed Dwight D. Eisenhower would seem to be one of the least relevant things about his life and career, which takes up an entire paragraph. The source isn't even a biography of Williams, it's just a factoid mentioned in a book that is only used for this one reference. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

On further inspection, that isn't even in the ref. Deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Genres in info box

Rockabilly? I don't think this fits. The ref refers to "protorockabilly," which is not the same. And the gospel genre needs no ref, especially one that's broken. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

References

I don't understand the use of references in this article. For example, in the first graf of the main section a different ref is used for almost every fact. In addition, the citation styles are different, and some of the references are from publications that don't deal with Williams except in a peripheral manner, IOW they aren't primarily biographies, but an essay flogging some particular point of view. Can anyone explain this? Tom Reedy (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tom Reedy: The article needs cleanup for sure. I think in the past few years some content has been added that as you say, it does make sound the present version like an essay in some points. I've noticed it is a recurring problem when it comes to entries that deal with "cult" subjects (I have the same never ending cleanup happening in Cool Hand Luke).
About the use of peripheral sources rather than using the detailed biographies of Williams, the idea is to have a richness of sources to avoid just relaying on the same two or three books. I think many of the one-line citations can be replaced by a single one, and we can also do without those random links to cite the biographical material.
I'll try to set some time aside next week to work on a new cleanup.--GDuwenHoller! 14:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
What is the preferred format for citations? If it is to ever achieve FA status, the refs need to be consistently formatted. I've only been working on this page hit and miss. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd stick to "Surname, Name, p.X" with the Short foot note template pointing to the source material. I'll start with the cleanup today and see how far we get. About making it a FA, I'd sure love it. The only conflict is that maintaining that sort of status is difficult in my view for the same reason as to why the article reads like an essay at the moment. The moment you take your eyes off of it for a while, stuff like that pops up!--GDuwenHoller! 18:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be worthwhile to try to get the article up to FA status, especially since Hank's 100th birthday is this coming September. I've got other projects going, but in a month or so I should be able to devote some time to it. If we shoot for, say, July to submit it, then we should have plenty of time to correct whatever needs fixing before the birthday (and it could--and should!--be the feature article for that day). Tom Reedy (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
With a collaborator onboard, no doubt I'd be glad to go for it and just focus on that for the next few months. I have the material, and I bet we could even do some expansion of the info when needed. Other than that, I'd be interested to know how can I get to put the same protection status that my GA reviewer got for the Willie Nelson article back in the day (which experienced the issues I described before with essay-like content being added and what not).--GDuwenHoller! 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Usually an administrator has to be contacted. I had a lot of the same problems when I took the Shakespeare authorship question page to FA, and tipping off an administrator to what is happening helped. (That page had so many problems it eventually went to arbitration!) Tom Reedy (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the way the FA process is conducted sometimes and the occasional evisceration of well-written content by brevity zealots, turning an article that covers its subject thoroughly into a skeletal outline heavy on main article links that will not be clicked on by most readers. Being familiar with Tom Reedy's work on the Shakespeare authorship question article, though, I support what you guys want to do.
I also completely agree with GDuwen's statement, "the idea is to have a richness of sources to avoid just relying on the same two or three books." A few years ago I had found many varied sources, perhaps a hundred or so, most of them academic, for a biography article which another editor decided to take to FA status, but when it got its gold star (I got many of those in grade school) I was not pleased to see it left with over 150 cites of one source, not an academic one, out of a total of 190. That is surely excessive. Carlstak (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My preferred requirement for a reliable reference is that it treat the topic in a serious way and in depth. I'm not a fan of using omnibus sources that only mention the topic en passant or in a short sketch. With that in mind, I'd like to start by deleting a cited source in the article, Cusic, Don (2008). Discovering Country Music. You can read the page that's cited here (search for the page number, 61). As you can see, it's a potted version of country music history, not a biography or discussion of Williams or his music. It's an example of the result we want for this article, a tertiary source, not a secondary source derived from in-depth research. There are other sources that are weak for an FA article, and there are some that are that cite wrong pages or wrong information. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the Cusic citation, I get your point. It is indeed only a page long and it could be easily replaced by one of the full length bios. As for the page numbers sometimes being wrong, my best guess is that it has to do with different editions of the book being cited. As an example, take Hank Williams: The Biography: the edition cited on the entry is the one printed in 2009, while the copy I own was printed in 2004. To that you can that sometimes the real page number in a physical copy differs from the one assigned by say, Google Books, which makes it sometimes being off by a page or three.--GDuwenHoller! 18:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Cusic is gone, but I'm still a bit worried about the proliferation of the Escott et al. citation. Though the ISBN is different, I think the 2015 one is going to have to be replaced too. It seems to be the very same book with a title change to profit on the biopic??--GDuwenHoller! 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I ordered a number of biographies of Williams I didn't previously own on the physical form to correct the issue with the page numbers, and to finally get to have a more wide use of source material to replace instances of Escott et al..--GDuwenHoller! 18:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Using a chatbot for the article

Since you guys are talking about a rewrite of this article, perhaps this is good moment to bring up that it's surely only a matter of time, a short time, before people start using GPT-4 to write Wikipedia articles. It's probably already happening. The WP community is going to have to face this development, and create policies to deal with it. I've already experimented with finding sources for articles using the previous iteration, ChatGPT, but unfortunately it has the problem of creating plausible-sounding citations that don't exist, being that it is trained with large language models. This bug will be fixed, if it isn't already, in GPT-4. Everything is going to change, very soon. The reason I bring this up is that I intend to use GPT-4 to assist me in editing the article. Carlstak (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is more of a cleanup that intends to verify or add citations where needed as per your usual FAN (which I may mention, I've failed four times about ten years ago with Jennifer Connelly, the last two times narrowly. But hey, at least I got to learn something while trying!).
As for ChatGPT, I'll personally abstain from using it. It'll probably deem things like the GOCE obsolete at some point (which I don't complain about, since there is a limited number of people actively working on it. That, and that you can do without the many mistakes I personally do while writing!) But somehow I think that reading all the available biographies of a subject mixed with the human judgement of what really needs to be included on an entry still is going to trump AI for a very long time. I may be wrong, but at the end of the day (and even though they may be using it to train AI with it) I still think Wikipedia is meant for humans to read it!--GDuwenHoller! 18:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
By the way, @Carlstak: you may be interested in checking Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia (if you already didn't). There's also more users making suggestions on its talk page. You got me thinking of the possible implications of using AI, but heck, the discussion has already started all over Wikipedia apparently! (if you allow me to be captain obvious here)--GDuwenHoller! 19:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, GDuwen. I've played a little with ChatGPT, but I'm on the waitlist for GPT-4, which is the iteration I want to use for editing articles. PC Mag says "GPT-3.5 is a text-to-text model, GPT-4 is more of a data-to-text model", which better suits my purposes; it even accepts images as part of a prompt. Plus, OpenAI says "...it's [GPT-4] 60% less likely to fabricate facts, which in AI terms are called 'hallucinations'". (I like that term).
I want to see how well it deals with organizing and editing the few gigabytes' worth of various rough article drafts I've got saved in Google Docs, and to prompt it to produce text that I might adapt, but certainly not to actually write an article, which I'm sure GPT-4 can do. Also to try it for finding sources, and see if I get any results, whatever the community eventually decides to do in the guidelines they're talking about at "Using neural network language models on Wikipedia". I also think it might have many applications for expanding my sex life.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The community will figure it out I guess, as I've seen that a number of users already share my concerns with the points that come to mind. I think at some point whatever reliable source you find about Hank Williams (and there is a throve of them!), they'll start repeating the information anyway. And that is leaving out rumors or whatever unfounded claims that float out there about his life.--GDuwenHoller! 18:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm familiar with reliable sources for info about Hank Williams, being that I have a particular, personal interest in the man, besides the fact that I've been singing some of his songs for 50 years. I don't need GPT-4 to find sources for this article, I'm expert at finding sources, and I've already found some for this one. I've found thousands of reliable sources for WP articles by myself. I want to test the AI to see if it's improved. Carlstak (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Sounds more than good, my experience with FAN hasn't been that good thus far and I sure can use that help. Talking about the existing sources, I'm getting close to finish my first pass at trying to make them look at least like a common format and replacing dead links or unreliable ones. I'm sure there'll be more replacement to come, but it is a little progress.--GDuwenHoller! 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm still working on fact-checking and finding sources for Francis Drake, which was full of misinformation and still needs work (I specialize in biographies, among other interests). I can't devote much attention to this article till I finish an IRL project I've been working on for months. I'm almost done with that, and then I'm taking a break. I have full confidence in you and Tom Reedy to improve the article, and hope to find time to assist you. By the way, I enjoy straight copy editing and cleanup tasks in addition to writing and sourcing text where needed. Looking forward to joining you soon. All the best, Carlstak (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been out of pocket cos the street pavers cut my fiber-optic line and I won't have internet until next week, so I missed out on this conversation. I've experimented with ChatGPT and the results I get aren't promising for anything unless you're looking for some mealy-mouthed filler. I'm on the waiting list for GPT-4, and I'm hoping it's better, but we'll see. Apparently some people are easily impressed if they think ChatGPT is like interacting with a human. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Damn street pavers.;-) I get all my internet through my mobile hotspot, costs me $30 per month. Yeah, like I said, my experience with ChatGPT is that it fabricates non-existent sources that sound completely plausible, as it cites actual academic websites, but with completely bogus authors and articles. Still waiting for access to GPT-4, and I'm on the waitlist for Google's version of GPT-4, Bard, which I hear is slightly faster. These are bound to improve, I think. Carlstak (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Now I'm hearing that ChatGPT-4 still hasn't fixed citation and quotation and continues to hallucinate, and that the problem is structural by design. Damn. Carlstak (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Tried Bard, and it's no better. Couldn't find a way to prompt it to not hallucinate non-existent sources and authors. Carlstak (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Lost Notebooks section

That is a real dog's breakfast, made worse by Chet Flippo's unreferenced (as usual) exaggerations and speculations. I don't have time tonight, but I'll rewrite it later this week. It's depressing to see the amount of sheer fantasy that has been in this article for so long. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Francis Drake article was worse before I overhauled it with a fact-check. I've gone ahead and rewritten the Lost Notebooks part of this article with text sourced from the LA Times that is more informative than Flippo's tripe. If you still want to rewrite it, that's fine. Carlstak (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure wasn't expecting that. I guess that would make Flippo's Your Cheatin' Heart: A Biography of Hank Williams not that reliable?--GDuwenHoller! 17:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. Any journalist who saw Hank Williams perform and played a zombie in Dawn of the Dead is cool with me, at least spiritually.;-) I haven't read Your Cheatin' Heart so I can't speak to its quality, but I just ordered a copy for $5 to check it out. I've been reading Rolling Stone since issue no. 1, and I remember Flippo's byline on many articles I read.
I saw right away reading the CMT News column reference I removed that it was not an example of his best work. I mean, it begins, "Hank Williams was a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Ugh. It reads like a Nashville insider's view, but still manages to come off more as rumor-spreading than journalistic "research" (his word). I think Randy Lewis's article about the "Lost Notebooks" is better journalism, and more reliable as a source. By the way, Flippo and Lewis were good friends. Carlstak (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Flippo made a lot of claims but neglected to furnish references. His notes for the book are at the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum, and I spent two days sifting through them trying to identify his sources, with little success. He also fictionalized a lot of conversations. Nevertheless, he did uncover some medical records and some correspondence from Audrey Williams that hadn't been known, so he's not totally useless. It's a shame, too, because I liked a lot of his journalism for Rolling Stone. And no, he never saw Williams perform. And the best source for the Lost Notebooks is the liner notes written by Michael McCall, which can be read here. The notebook that was stolen and recovered wasn't the notebook from which the songs were produced. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
He didn't see Hank Williams perform? Melinda Newman quotes him in the Hollywood Reporter: "Well, I've heard your stories, and they are all good. I only have one. In 1951, my mama and daddy took me to Ft. Worth, Texas to see Hank Williams play." Are you saying he lied? What proof do you have?
Also, I've changed the web archive url for the Lewis article in the LA Times to that of the most recent crawl from 3 April 2023, as the content has been updated and changed from that of the original publication date. The present text in that source says, "After Dylan first approached Holly Williams about the lost notebooks material nearly a decade ago, it was years before she heard anything more.", so it seems to contradict what you say the liner notes say. Are liner notes considered reliable sources? And the web archive page for "The Lost Notebooks of Hank Williams" album originated at Discogs, which since it has user-generated content, is not considered a reliable source. Carlstak (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
PS: The liner notes by Micheael McCall, senior writer-editor at the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum are available on the full text archive page, here They aren't on the archive album page, which says, "This item is available with audio samples only". The web archive's bot transcriptions on full text pages still aren't very good for some reason. Here's a readable transcription. They look like a usable source to me. Carlstak (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I did not know that Flippo claimed to have seen Hank Williams! Apparently I'm wrong about that; I assumed he was too young when Williams was alive.
As to the liner notes, go to the page you linked to and click on "See other formats" at the top right. It will take you to the page I linked, and at the top left you will see a picture of the album cover. Below it click on the tab "Liner Notes" and expand the window. And yes, liner notes are reliable sources.
If the original LA Times story was corrected, it was done clumsily (totally in line with the original article, which is clumsily written to begin with). Sony/ATV contacted Dylan in late 2002; Dylan contacted Holly Williams in 2003, Sony/ATV contacted her two years later. Go back and try to construct a timeline with Lewis' article; it's impossibly vague. AP ran a story by Chris Talbott that is much clearer. I've got a Newspapers.com subscription that I use but there's a bootlegged archived version here. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I just checked and Hank Williams didn't play in Fort Worth in 1951. Perhaps he saw him in Dallas and misremembered it as Fort Worth. That would be close enough for Flippo! Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Haha. Hey, give the man a break—he did his share of drugs back in the day like everybody else then. It probably affected his memory.;-) (I'm so glad I got to be young in the '70s.) Yes, I had already clicked on the "See other formats" tab, but I don't see a tab for "Liner Notes". It could be because of my browser—I use a fork of Firefox with a lot of legacy extensions—so I downloaded the pdf and there's the motherload with all the liner notes complete with images. Fascinating stuff, but I don't have time to read it all now (I will). You certainly seem to have a handle on this subject, so I trust you will be fixing the legacy section and the rest of the article when you have a chance. Best, Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
lol! My guess is they took him to the Hadacol show in Dallas. I was wondering if we could move a lot of that material to the discography page, since it isn't really biography. There's no reason a discography has to be just a big list. My problem is time. I'm working on a paper but I can't resist editing Wikipedia when it's something I'm interested in. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. I've restored your correction and added a reflink to the Talbott AP article in the New York Daily News. I suppose the material has a place in the Discography page, since he did write the lyrics for the songs, or at least snatches of them. Some filmographer kept trying to add a film with a CGI James Dean to the Filmography section of the James Dean article, which seemed improper given that the actual James Dean had no part in it. This seems somewhat different.
Funny what you say about being unable to resist editing Wikipedia; I almost always look at my watchlist in the morning before I get to work on an IRL project and many's the time I just had to fix an edit some idiot or troll made when I should have been getting to my work.;-) I have time off now, but I hesitate to do much editing beyond copyediting on this article, in anticipation that some parts are going to be changed. I have implicit faith in your work on this article. Carlstak (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The bio Flippo wrote has plenty of colorful remarks, often amusing, sometimes cringe . The issue is that he mixed actual facts with products of his own imagination regarding dialogues and such. While the only line cited has to do with his birth certificate and happens to be factual, I wonder if the overall content of the book would just make it unreliable.
Other than that, if I may comment, a look at my watchlist sometimes gets me busy enough to go on a tangent from actual pressing work!--GDuwenHoller! 17:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like we shouldn't use it, however entertaining. I'll still read it, or at least skim it. Going off on tangents is not only the way I edit and create content to contribute to WP, but pretty much the way I live my entire life, even work. I'm fortunate to be able to do that, although I'm sure a therapist would tell me it's neurotic and sociopathic. I don't trust them anyway.;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm down with putting Flippo on the unreliable list. Read the reviews that were published after it came out and you'll understand why.
And I dunno about you guys, but I've never really been happy unless I was pursuing an obsession. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, both points. It only took me twenty years to find a profession in which it is an advantage to be manically obsessive, one in which there is little competition, and that pays well. Editing WP is a hobby, but it has enriched my life, and I enjoy its social aspects. Carlstak (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Yup, I'll get rid of the Flippo stuff. I picked up my copy of the book after our discussion here (which I haven't read in years) and it would indeed jeopardize the article more than it would help it. However entertaining, he could be the poster child for hallucinating.
Regarding the obsession that drives us, most likely it its conscientiousness, which I'm really thankful for. It also took me a number of years to harness it properly.--GDuwenHoller! 17:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Koon discusses Flippo's book in his "Sources" section, and he's not a fan either. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

New paragraph to start the "Legacy" section

I wrote a new paragraph before the start of the chronologically ordered events of Hank's legacy. I did it in order to replace the vague claim of him being considered the "king of country music" (which we may disagree or not, but there are also plenty of sources making the same proclamation about Merle Haggard, George Jones or whoever). Instead, I think it is more productive (even if we are repeating their names later on, like the halls of fame) to point to the description that renown sources have already made of him. That would paint a good enough image of what he meant to the genre (and to music in general) before we jump to the rest of things dedicated to him.

Of course, further aproppiate remarks should be added (and do let me know if I've been relaying too much on direct quotation!).--GDuwenHoller! 18:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Roy Acuff was universally recognized as the King of Country Music in Williams' time. Even Hank acknowledged it in a 1952 interview:"He's the biggest singer the music ever knew. You booked him and you didn't worry about crowds. For drawing power in the South, it was Roy Acuff and then God." Tom Reedy (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I think Hank had it right, similarly to how in my very Southern family, Robert E. Lee always outranked God and the Holy Trinity.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

What's the status?

It's been almost two months since Tom Reedy broached the subject of going for FA status. I've been under the impression that GDuwen sees this pursuit as "more of a cleanup that intends to verify or add citations where needed as per your usual FAN", while on the other hand Tom Reedy seems to favor more rewriting. So which is it, and is pursuing featured article status still a goal, since it seems to be proceeding at a glacial pace? Carlstak (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Verifying, adding citations and correcting the existing content is already a good advance since we're supposed to at least start somewhere. I see how after we get things right with what we have we can rewrite paragraphs or further build from there.
It would be nice to archive FA by the time of Hank's 100th birthday, but if we don't make it, there's no need to race. Things also happen outside of Wiki that keep us from editing days at the time (guessing here that it is also the case for the two of you).--GDuwenHoller! 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your reply. Not intended as criticism per se, but rather a request for feedback from you invested editors. I'm wondering if Tom has a plan, or at least an intention, to rewrite substantial parts of the text. As I think I mentioned earlier (I'm not scrolling back;-), I don't want to make any substantial changes if those would end up being deleted, so I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with. Then I'll do my fact-checking and copy editing thing;-). Carlstak (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm still busy with other things, but I'm still contributing here and there. I need to devote an entire week to it soon. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
K, thanks. Carlstak (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@Carlstak: I would suggest that you can start any time with your work. I just plan to cleanup the "Legacy" section (talking about the citations here) and I won't touch any of the other sections. I'm sure you'll add relevant information that is missing at the moment. I'm taking some time to read Roger M. Williams' book again, so it'll take maybe a while until I go back to work on the sections regarding Hank's music career (giving the proper heads up not to cause editing disruption). Maybe that way we can sort of speak "move the chains" a little.--GDuwenHoller! 18:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
GDuwen, I'm all for getting things moving again, and I decline to get involved in the ongoing dispute between two editors;-) both of whom I respect. I would like to put some energy into this article, but I've just got a commission to execute another project in my 'real' life. I will try to make some time on weekends, but I was hoping to get some more sourced content up in another article I've been working on. I hope our friends resolve this amicably, and then join us in improving this article with its worthy subject. I have a special feeling for ole Hank, since hillbilly soap operas are something I can really relate to.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
It is understandable, I'm also following their conversation. I'm guessing that other users of the community are going to have to take part in it since they seem to have reached a stalemate. Hopefully they'll work it out soon enough.--GDuwenHoller! 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
And yes, looking forward to whatever content you both add. I've been also lately doing a little less work on the article due to some time constrains, but we'll eventually get back on track soon. Hank and his legacy deserve the proper Wikipedia treatment.--GDuwenHoller! 18:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning Paul Gilley

This biography should give a small mention of Paul Gilley who is said by music journalist Chet Flippo and Kentucky historian W. Lynn Nickell to have ghost-written several of Hank's songs, especially "Cold, Cold Heart" and "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry". Enough sources exist to support this claim being mentioned here. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Chet Flippo (1997). Your Cheatin' Heart: A Biography of Hank Williams (revised ed.). Plexo. pp. 7, 130, 150. ISBN 9780859652322.
  • Nickell, W. Lynn (2012). Paul Gilley: The Ghost Writer in the Sky. Independent. ISBN 9781467574198.
  • "New biography on Morgan Co. songwriter Paul Gilley". Appalachian Attitude. WMMT 88.7 Mountain Community Radio. July 2, 2012.
  • "Songwriter Paul Gilley". Kentucky Educational Television. July 29, 2013.
  • John Flavell; George Wolfford (June 11, 2012). "'Watching from above'". The Daily Independent. Ashland, Kentucky.

Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

In the quarter of a century since Flippo first mentioned it, the claims have not met with any kind of acceptance, so mentioning a tiny fringe theory with no documentary evidence is not needed in this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Our job here is to represent sources. The claim is covered in a bunch of sources. It's as simple as that. Your disbelief of the claim isn't a factor. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I would not consider Chet Flippo's Your Cheatin' Heart a reliable source; it's historical fiction that has dialogue 'reconstructed' from interviews he conducted many years later with people who knew Williams. I bought a copy so I could get a feel for it, and while it is undeniably entertaining and a gripping read, it lost all credibility as a reliable source when I read on page 197: "He had managed an erection twice in two months since their marriage." What the actual fuck? ;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody has expressed doubt about the research of Kentucky historian W. Lynn Nickell. He has been represented as a local expert, without a single source calling his research methods into question.
The media have addressed the claim multiple times—enough for this page to mention it. Here are some media representations, listed below. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody has expressed doubt about the research of Kentucky historian W. Lynn Nickell. That's because no one has read it. He has been represented as a local expert, without a single source calling his research methods into question. "has been represented?" Who exactly has done this? Anybody except a TV reporter? Either way it dioesn't make any difference, because it's self-published. See WP:BLPSPS. Most of the others are examples of circular reporting, i.e. reporting that someone other source said something.
And you might actually want to read the conclusions of your sources. Your first one concludes "That's a theory I don't buy," and your second one clearly states "However, in the main, both Flippo and Nickell’s assertions have been dismissed as they lack real weight." This is a biography page; it's not a "teach the controversy" page. Wikipedia's job is not to "represent sources;" Wikipedia's stated purpose is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The Earth page does not mention the Flat Earth theory. Since this is an extreme fringe view with no evidence, inserting it into this article would give it undue weight. And since it already has its own page, not including it on this page does not violate WP:NPOV. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Self-published material is acceptable from topic experts. The conclusions of the listed sources don't bother me: what they do is show that the claim is part of the literature. Respected topic experts such as Bill Koon have given the claim serious consideration. You are trying to hush up Bill Koon? The claim is considered minor but not fringe. It merits mention. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, assertion carries no weight. Wikipedia has very clear policies and guidelines concerning fringe issues. No one is hushing up anyone; as I said, the topic has its own page. Accusations of censorship are typical of fringe adherents. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The claim is a minor part of Hank Williams's story, not fringe, and should be mentioned simply because it is found in the literature. What I'm seeing on your part is stubborn refusal to acknowledge what's in front of you. You don't like it, and you think it's not important. But if it's not important, then why did Bill Koon call it out in 1981, 1983 and 2001? Why did three publications choose to address the claim directly in 2022, while a fourth publication accepted it as true? The claim has legs. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
...while a fourth publication accepted it as true?
Are you familiar with WP:OR? Specifically the sentence "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments."
Let's look at the entire paragraph of your "fourth publication [which] accepted it as true." Here's the graf:
Like Marvin’s session from Scott, which remained in the archive for decades, Franklin’s Scott sessions provide a fuller view of her career designs and the wide range of material she felt comfortable or even worthy of recording. At the time that Franklin recorded Unforgettable, neither Hank Williams nor Dinah Washington would have been considered natural interpreters of the American songbook, yet Franklin’s recordings of “Cold, Cold Heart” and Washington’s “This Bitter Earth” highlight the ways that a new generation of artists from the 1960s helped to redefine the canon of American song, particularly at the intersections of music made by African Americans and working-class ethnic Whites. Williams’s “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry” (1949), a song credited to both Williams and Paul Gilley, has become a standard, recorded by a wide array of artists including Al Green, who covered the song on Call Me (1973), the same album where he tackles Willie Nelson. The same can be said about Washington’s “This Bitter Earth,” which was written and produced by Clyde Otis and covered by a litany of Washington’s contemporaries, such as Big Maybelle, Nancy Wilson, Brook Benton, and Etta James (forty years after Washington’s original), and, years later, by Johnny Taylor, Lou Rayls, Gladys Knight, and Jimmy Scott.
If ever there were an example of reliance upon a passing comment, that is it. Sources for this article should be reliable biographical works about Hank Williams, not opinion pieces or blogs or self-published fringe theories. I'm sure we'll hash all this out when you take it to the boards. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
This article will never make Featured status without mentioning the claim. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Threat duly noted. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It's a statement of expectation, that willfully ignoring part of the literature on the topic is going to be frowned upon by reviewers. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant WP:RS board discussion

I have opened up a discussion here. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Connie McKee

The only biography that mentions Connie McKee is on pages 19-20 of Jay Caress' Hank Williams: Country Music's Tragic King (1979), which I presume is the source for Leppert and Lipsitz. Hank Williams never mentioned him, his sister never mentioned him, and his mother (who made up a lot of stuff) never mentioned him. The information comes from Taft Skipper, Hank's first cousin on his mother's side. And he doesn't say what Leppert and Lipsitz say. The exact quotation is (after he describes Connie McKee): "I think Hank picked up some of his first guitar stuff from him."

Not only do Leppert and Lipsitz make more of Skipper's comment than is warranted, they also have three two other demonstrable errors of interpretation on that page, i.e. that Hank tried out for the rodeo, that he made a "secret trip" to Portland, and that he worked under the pseudonym Herman P. Willis for Jack Ruby. They also name two early band members who didn't play in the band at the same time as if they were in the same band in order to make a point. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Tom, thanks for your notice. Please feel free to remove any erroneous information that I've added to the article; you are better informed on the subject than I am. I would do it myself right now but I have to husband the little energy I have left after today. I've been asked to comment on some very serious matters and I need to think about that weighty stuff after a shower, a couple glasses of wine and a bowl.;-) Carlstak (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem with Wikipedia is no "like" button. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree.;-) Carlstak (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Differing sources, most of them wrong

I've been chasing down rabbit holes and what I've found illustrates why editing this page is such a difficult task.

Here's what we've got in the lede: "Williams began his professional career in Montgomery in 1937 when local radio station WSFA hired him to perform on a 15-minute program, sourced to Koon 2001, 29. Overlooking the fact that the ref page is wrong, hardly any of the sources that talk about Hank's start agree on anything. Here's a list of what other sources say (and it is far from being exhaustive).

Koon (2001): "…in the fall of 1937 won first prize in the talent show….it helped get him on WSFA, where he became The Singing Kid with Dad Crysel’s band….and soon had his own 15-minute program that came on twice a week" (16-17).

Colin Escott (1990) Hank Williams, The Original Singles Collection: "In 1937, Williams won a talent contest with a self-composed song, 'WPA Blues.' He started booking himself into schoolhouses and bars, even making a short foray into Florida to play with Pappy McCormick’s Barn Dance Troubadours. Returning to Montgomery, Hank auditioned at WSFA in 1942 for one of the sponsored fifteen minute shows that made up the bulk of their broadcast day" (4).

Colin Escott (1994) Hank Williams: The Biography: Started at WSFA, no clear date. Christmas 1937 around the time of first public appearance at the Empire theater where he won 1st place and $15. Met Braxton Shuffert around 1937 or 1938, introduced himself, started playing with Shuffert, Freddy Beach and Hezzy Adair in 1938. “He wasn’t listed as the star of his own sponsored show until 1941.” Toured with Juan Lobo in 1938. (16-19)

Horace Logan with Bill Sloan (1998), Elvis, Hank and Me: "He met...Braxton Schuffert, who...performed on WSFA from time to time. The two of them...started traveling around the area in Shuffert’s ’35 Ford to book shows at country schoolhouses, backwoods dancehalls, and occasional theaters. In February 1941, at the age of seventeen, Hank landed his first singing job on WSFA, but lost it a year and a half later on account of his drinking. It would be more than six years later—in April 1947, to be exact—before he landed another regular job at the Montgomery station.”

Jay Caress (1979), Hank Williams Country Music’s Tragic King: "[shortly after moving to Montgomery in 1937] Hank rode the crest of his little triumph at the Empire theater into the studios of WSFA and asked for an audition. He won a spot on a program that featured Dad Crysell’s band and was promptly named 'The Singing Kid.' It wasn’t long until Hank had parlayed the break into a show of his own, fifteen minutes twice a week....Just turned fourteen (Sept. 1937), he was appearing twice a week on the biggest country music station in Alabama" (25).

Colin Escott & Kira Florita (2001), Hank Williams: Snapshots from The Lost Highway: "Hank began performing on WSFA as early as 1937 or 1938 and got his own show in 1941. (38)....Hank, Hezzy Adair, and Braxton Schuffert formed the original Drifting Cowboys around 1938"(34).

Country Music Encyclopedia (1974): "When he was 12, he won a songwriting contest with 'WPA Blues.' With the $15 prize he decided to form a band, The Drifting Cowboys" (301).

Roger Williams (1970, 1981), Sing A Sad Song: "Hank followed his Empire Theater success with a visit to radio station WFSA. He auditioned for a singing spot and got one, on a program featuring Dad Crysel’s band. “The Singing Kid” he was dubbed. Before long, he had a program of his own, a twice-weekly, 15-minute segment....The two shows together paid $15" (32).

With so many differing sources, we have to make editorial decisions on which ones to use, and in some places we're going to have to be deliberately vague in the manner of Escott. Most biographers rely on the book Hank's mother wrote with Allen Rankin in 1953, which is full of misremembered stories and errors (the book is the only source for Hank winning a talent contest; he never mentioned it in an interview nor did he ever say anything about it to his band members). Most biographers have followed her in giving him an unrealistically early start. In truth, he met Braxton Shuffert in the fall of 1938, who had him on his WSFA show several times. Hank and Hezzy had a 15-minute radio show on WCOV from early 1939 until 21 February 1941. He went to WSFA on 24 February 1941, and in May of 1941 he went to WCOA Pensacola, but only lasted a month before coming home. We can't put this in the article because it's OR, but in order to not be wrong we're going to have to selectively quote the sources we can use. An authoritative biography of Hank Williams has yet to be written. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see many options in some cases but to being vague. There's a plethora of Hank Williams stories with a number of facts that we can't match with one another just because the accounts of the people interviewed changed through the years or memory did not serve them right. The current lead needs a rewrite whenever we are done with the body of the article anyway.
After looking at a few newspapers, I was able to find mentions in the 1938 WFSA schedule about "Dad Crysel's Royal Hillbillies", as well as a few promotions of their performances but nothing about "The Singin' Kid" (although the station featured a 15-minute program with a probably unrelated "Singin' Sam"). I wasn't abe to find any piece related to the talent show at the Empire Theater in 1937 either. You could say that Hank was 14 years old at the time of the talent show, but mentioning the year would suffice. Or we could just mention that following his success on the talent show as a teenager he started to appear on WFSA.--GDuwenHoller! 18:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The talent show is in every source, so mentioning it is mandatory--the Empire Theater had a talent show every Saturday for a few years, and I found a 1948 newspaper article that mentioned Hank started out b winning a talent show, so in all likelihood it happened. I also found a source saying that Braxton Shuffert was the person who encouraged him to enter the talent show. Shuffert said he met Hank when he was 15, so that means after September 1938. I also found a source from a former band member who said the band was formed in 1939, so I think the timeline is he met Shuffert in fall of 1938 (Shuffert said Hank had a kid-sized guitar, so that was before he got the sunburst Martin). The contest he won was probably around Christmas 1938, and he started singing on WCOV in early 1939 (so far the earliest record I have of him singing on the radio is April 1939). He went to Texas in October/November 1940, came back to WCOV for a few months and then to WSFA in February 1941. After a few months he went to Florida, and came back to WSFA in less than a month. I'm going to try to find a way to say all that rather vaguely, and we can add details after I publish my research.
Singing Sam was on WSFA for a couple of years before Hank was. It's amazing how much interesting musical history has been lost. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
You can for sure describe that in vague detail (and I foresee enough people trying to contest it with with the available literature). But we can clear that during the nomination process. About your research, well, I never have too many Hank Williams books if you decide to embark in fixing what you see as a gaps/inaccuracies regarding his life story. It is hard work, but there's still enough of us ready and willing to read about it.--GDuwenHoller! 20:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh by the way, I wasn't casting a doubt over including the talent contest or it's existence. I tried to find some piece talking about it but I came up with nothing (I was able to find in some other articles I've written interesting information that way). The Newspapers.com offer of the Wikipedia Library is an amazing tool, I thought it'd be pretty nice if I could find any early mentions of Hank there. I'm glad I was able to find the original interview in which he credited Tee-Tot as his mentor at least. But once in a while, I do come across some jewels there.--GDuwenHoller! 21:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I've never understood how this article attained "good article" status in the first place, given the state it was in when I first read the whole thing. A novice reviewer, or maybe they didn't fact-check the text and references at all? I've been anticipating that Tom Reedy was going to rewrite the whole thing, and that still seems to be a possibility, given the depth of research he seems to be doing. I'm thinking that some bold editing will be in order, to avoid the tortuous and maddening (at least to me) process of discussing every change in advance on the talk page. If other editors disagree with those changes, then they are free to revert (with an explanation) and take it to the talk page. Carlstak (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
PS: I'm surprised that there isn't more input from other editors here. Given the traffic this article gets, I would have thought there would be more engagement. Carlstak (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised, too, given all the devotees Hank Williams still has. I've joined three Facebook groups devoted to him in the hopes of meeting some knowledgeable people, but their comments seem to be confined to raving about how he is the greatest country singer in the entire gol-darned universe. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Hahaha, it figures. You're really going all-out on this, Tom—will be very interesting to see the results of all your labors. Carlstak (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Move It On Over" edit

Binksternet and I seem to be at loggerheads over adding unneeded detail to the mention of William's early hit "Move It On Over" in this article. Besides this being a biography--not a place for irrelevant and extended details about a particular song--the interpretation of the sources given appears to be WP:OR, that is, combining what different sources say to make a novel statement. In order to make it easy to show that I am wrong, I have uploaded screenshots of the three sources cited here. Mentioning that the song uses an old Mardi Gras riff does nothing to enlighten the reader, because it is unexplained, and the riff is being conflated with the structure of the song (two lines of verse followed by two lines of a repetitive chorus, which actually derived from old military march cadences, traces of which still being used today), which is why my original edit says that the sources are being misinterpreted. This article is a biography, not a collection of every opinion anyone ever said about Hank Williams and his songs. We need other editorial input on this. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that information happens to be more relevant to the entry about the song itself (which is indeed an article I would be interested to expand at some point since it is an early rock and roll influence, or often mentioned as such). Similar to that, I feel that even though it is properly sourced, we're giving too much detail about his set on The Kate Smith Evening Hour. But being that it represents some of the only known footage of Hank, it may be appropriate.--GDuwenHoller! 20:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, full disclosure: The WP text that Tom Reedy initially removed was added by me. It said, speaking about Move It on Over: "...which became a country hit; the basic structure of the song had historically appeared in New Orleans parade music and in rhythm and blues songs such as "Cornbread" by Hal Singer."
My edit was cited to Lipsitz, who says about Bill Haley's song Rock Around the Clock: "the song had a long history in the collective memory of the audience in that its basic structure appeared in country music ("Move It On Over" by Hank Williams, 1953), in rhythm and blues ("Cornbread" by Hal Singer, 1948 ...) I notice now that Lipsitz got the year that Hank recorded and released the song wrong—it was 1947, not 1953. On that basis alone, I think Lipsitz's work is disqualified as a source, I mean, his book is supposed to be an academic work, it was published by the University of Minnesota Press.
Binksternet responded to Tom Reedy's edit by restoring the gist of my edit and expanding the info, adding a cite of Jim Dawson's text: "More specifically, he [Bill Haley] scrapped the melody of Freedman's verse and dropped in, almost note for note, the verse from one of his favorite records, Hank Williams's 1949 hit, "Move It On Over", which Williams in turn had partially recycled from an old, common New Orleans Mardis Gras riff; boogie-woogie pianist Little Brother Montgomery used it on his 1930 recording of "Vicksburg Blues".
So Lipsitz says about Rock Around the Clock: "its basic structure appeared in country music ("Move It On Over" by Hank Williams)", and according to Dawson, Williams had "partially recycled" Move It On Over from a New Orleans Mardis Gras riff.
It hurts my head to try to parse all this right now—I will say that it doesn't bother me that Tom Reedy removed the text and citation I added, but I can't speak for Binksternet, of course. I would go along with the position that the information, in a form that both editors might accept (if that is possible ;-), would be better placed at the Move It On Over page. I'm trying to think about Michelangelo, so that's all I have to say about this. Carlstak (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hank_Williams/Archive_1&oldid=1170794969"