Talk:I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Country MusicTemplate:WikiProject Country MusicCountry Music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Hank has been credited as the writer for 70 years. Delete the Paul jargon.[edit]

Those additions should be challenged. This is re-writing history. Hank has been credited as the sole writers for 70 years! You allow some unreliable source to come forward and change that? Mind you the source admits all evidence is BURNED ! And all who could challenge it are dead. This is disgraceful Rockojr2488 (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those additions should be challenged. This is re-writing history. Hank has been credited as the sole writers for 70 years! You allow some unreliable source to come forward and change that? Mind you the source admits all evidence is BURNED ! And all who could challenge it are dead. This is disgraceful. No wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source. This is American history being falsely re-written Rockojr2488 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the evidence was burned... just a large collection of it. History which is not correct should certainly be re-written if new information arises. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I replied here: Talk:Cold, Cold Heart#The Paul jargon needs to be deleted.. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are objections to the new version, I reverted to the pre-October 26 one. Binksternet's October 26 addition is also retained. I just moved it to a new "Controversy" section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these rumors should be downplayed, if mentioned at all. Hank wrote the song and Acuff-Rose filed the copyright. If we want to mention it, do it in 2 lines by itself so it doesn't mess up the rest of our article. Tillywilly17 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship claims[edit]

I have rewritten the authorship claims in accordance with Wikipedia's policy WP:FRINGE. The claims are not widely accepted, and the sources just quote each other. While Flippo's book should be a reliable source, he gives no citations and he admits that he wrote the book as an imaginative narrative. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your removal. The authorship claim is supported by a school publication from 1949, which I see you wrongly decided must be 1951. Don't change the date. The date is what makes the claim so potent. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a fringe topic and your WP:OR does not count as a reliable source. I predict we'll be at the boards before too long. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to peruse WP:NOR to see what it means. The material you don't like is based on local historians doing yeoman work. It's not based on my making shit up. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you might want to review the three-reversion policy, unless you're looking for a block. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]