# Talk:Blind Willie Johnson

The page currently makes the following statement: "...that he viewed a partial solar eclipse that was observable over Texas in 1905...". However, no solar eclipse (of any kind) occurred during 1905 that was visible in the United States as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_eclipses_visible_from_the_United_States
What's further is that it seems no partial eclipse was observable anywhere in the world during 1905. There was an annular eclipse in March 1905, but again it wasn't visible in the USA, nor was it a "partial" eclipse. The mentioning of the theory may still hold relevance in a historical sense, but it can't be argued for with much veracity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derp10327 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC) 
THe Solar eclipse of August 30, 1905 would have been partially visible from Texas. It  is not listed on that page because the path of totality did not touch the U.S., but a partial eclipse would be visible from Texas Sheila1988 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. BWJ recorded more than is listed. I have a 10 inch recording side A “Let Your Light Shine On Me” / side B “God Don’t Never Change”. This recording is detailed in the records enthusiasts site DISCOGS.[1]
Not married to my edit, just thought I’d run it by. Thank you.RayJ (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rj2046, not sure which list you are referring to, but the two songs are included on the List of songs recorded by Blind Willie Johnson, along with the recording and 78 Columbia release info. Both songs have their own articles ("God Don't Never Change", "Let Your Light Shine on Me") and are also included on Template:Blind Willie Johnson. BTW, Discogs.com has images of records and album covers, but cannot be used as a source because the added details are not considered reliable (see WP:NOTRSMUSIC: "Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG"). Thanks for bringing it up though; perhaps the list of songs should be upgraded to a discography/sessionography layout that is more typical for articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
date of death is wrong 62.98.138.76 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Willie B.Harris doesn't sing on "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole",just listen to the song and check it...first 4 sides are solo recordings by Blind Willie Johnson.On Johnson influence on Howlin' Wolf i'm dubious (Howlin' Wolf played guitar rarely),just Wolf's voice is similar to Blind Willie... 62.98.138.76 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I have "The Complete Blind Willie Johnson" box-set and reading the booklet i can't find where Samuel Charters states Willie B.Harris sings on "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole"...just listen to the song is simple first 5 sides were solo recordings by Johnson...as often happens Wikipedia is wrong, citing false sources. 62.98.138.76 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Location of cemetary was not unknown or lost. That is utter BS. It is true that the specific place that Blind Willie is unknown because no map of the cemetary's plot existed currently that was available. 2600:100D:B04F:F741:A9CE:6D01:96FF:A199 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The story behind the discovery of his burial place is recounted in this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There was a recent removal of first source citations because the reference contained was "self-published." What the editor (and any future editors) must understand is that just because something is self-published does not mean that it is inaccurate. And if something was inaccurate, then the editor must show that what is being cited is factually incorrect. In the case of this citation being removed, it is a serious error considering this was the first source (with original research) to correct decades old inaccuracies. So in this case - if the article was to maintain the date of birth as January 25, one would have to cite the one who posited this date first. Furthermore, i also made a correction as to who Johnson's parents were - which was also discovered by the same researcher and included in the same source. This information was first published in 2011, but has never be argued or proved otherwise in the intervening 11 years and, in fact, has been confirmed by several other not "self-published" sources in the intervening years. And finally, if a self-published work is your main concern, the original author has also published the information for the Library of Congress which one could easily locate here: https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/DarkWasTheNight_Ford.pdf. But I still think it is imperative to cite the first time this information was printed, but surely if your research says otherwise, please feel free to respond here with it.  DejaVudu19 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the WP policy on verifiability regarding self-published sources. The warning "content sourced to vanity press" is automatically added when Lulu Press is detected. Just because a self-published source may have some correct information doesn't mean it is acceptable as a source.  Rather, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." It appears that Ford has only one self-published book and a National Preservation Board "guest post".
But when reliable sources are available there is no need for self-published ones. Jas Obrecht has published numerous books and articles on various artists and he addresses the conflicting dates and parents names in Early Blues (published by the University of Minnesota Press). He identifies the sources as Johnson's death certificate and a draft registration card. This should be sufficient for the points now sourced to Ford. BTW, why did you remove the Lone Star Music article without any explanation?
—Ojorojo (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your logic, but agree with your conclusion. Maybe Ford's data could be looked into (as it should) when the book was released (because it was new information), but 11 years later and with multiple "experts" not disputing it and, in fact, using the data, your argument doesn't hold that much weight.  And I truly hope you did not discredit the Library of Congress as an official source. A "guest post" is only someone who works outside of the library, but it is not a role anyone can play, as it is by invitation only.
And I removed the Lone Star Music citation because it was associated with an innaccurate "fact" that I thought I'd fix while I was on the page. That read: "Johnson was born on January 25, 1897, in Pendleton, Texas, a small town near Temple, Texas, to sharecropper George Johnson (also identified as Willie Johnson Sr.) and his wife, Mary Fields, who died in 1901." The citation is a mistake as to the birth date (Ford) and if we are to understand that that date is verifiable with the preponderance of evidence then we can conclude that his parents were not George Johnson or Mary Fields. So while Lone Star Music (if that is even the correct source) may have been where the inaccuarate source originated, it is factually incorrect.
In conclusion, I am all up for a discussion pertaining to what is true and what is fiction about the Johnson legacy but let's be clear - there are only three people who have conducted original research into it and that's Sam Charters, Dan Williams, and Shane Ford. If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears. With that being said, all the rest is conjecture or opinon.  DejaVudu19 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
In fact, the Library of Congress only asks "an established subject-matter expert" to write those posts and obviously they felt Ford was the foremost living expert to do so, which I would say is pretty "reliable." DejaVudu19 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
These comments appear to be little more than personal opinions. The fact that the Library of Congress used a "guest post" does not mean that "obviously they felt Ford was the foremost living expert" on Johnson. Obrecht, in his 2015 book Early Blues, notes that "it is possible that this draft card [with Jan. 25 and Pendleton] relates to another person."  So, while it doesn't specifically dispute Ford's info, it does question whether it should be considered dispositive. Additionally, your characterization of the Lone Star Music article as "factually incorrect" is baseless – it only includes "Johnson, born in Pendleton, Texas in 1897, only recorded 30 songs ...", which is consistent with Ford's guest post. The idea that "all the rest is conjecture or opinion" except for the three writers named ignores WP guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Johnson has been written about by several well-known published music authors and should not be so easily dismissed.
If choice comes down to a self-published author or one who has several books published by major music book publishers, the latter is preferred. Also, it is important to "maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight" (WP:Verify).
—Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your assessment, but the main thing is that if something is stated in the article then that original source should be cited. On the other hand, if that information is untrue, then it should be removed until it can be verified. At the end of the day, I believe that the sources and information as it pertains strictly to what our conversation centers on, is correct and should remain as is.  DejaVudu19 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
In 2008, prior to Ford's 2011 essay and 2014 book, an article in Living Blues magazine reported "blues researcher Jeff Anderson has found ... Blind Willie Johnson's June 5, 1918, draft card. [It] notes that he was born on January 25, 1897 (his death certificate cites January 22, 1897), that he was blinded at age 8 (his widow said 'about age 7'), and that he was born in Pendleton, Texas." So, if if only the original source should be cited, the draft registration card or Living Blues should be used (it also lists "Dock Johnson" as his father).
Also, it doesn't appear that other blues researchers and writers have acknowledged Ford as an expert on Johnson. The following sources, published after his essay and book, do not mention Ford nor list him as a source:
Sullivan (2013) – "Born in 1897 near Brenham, Texas (as journalist Michael Corcoran learned in 2004 by finding his death certificate)"
Obrecht (2015) – explains both the death certificate and draft registration sources
Hayes (2017) – notes the conflicting sources
Coppedge (2019) – "Corcoran later found that Johnson was actually born in Pendleton"
Monge 2022 – "For the most reliable biographical information on Johnson, see Michael Corcoran, 'On the Trail of Blind Willie Johnson,' Blues & Rhythm 188 (April 2004)
So, it can't be said that only one view or Ford is widely accepted. This is a case of conflicting sources and should follow a neutral point of view: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages 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."(WP:DUE)
Propose to reword the "Early life and career" section to explain the conflicting information and sources along the lines of Obrecht's 2015 book. This is the approach that is taken in other WP blues bios, such as Muddy Waters or John Lee Hooker.
—Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no "conflicting" information. Only you are conflicted. Unfortunately you have just not done your research. Research is not a popularity contest. Just because you are unfamiliar with a source does not refute the evidence presented (which you have still failed to do). All the names you have mentioned have not conducted original research into Johnson and again, I ask you to provide the data that says they have but, as of now, I can tell by your analysis that you are not an expert on this subject. So have your fun rearranging words on a Wikipedia entry. The truth remains, and I will look forward to returning to this thread in the coming years and see how well/ or not so well your words age.  DejaVudu19 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows reliable sources. We should summarize the conflicting information as Ojorojo suggests. Ewulp (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, inexperienced editors sometimes feel that their source is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE SOURCE that can be used. And sometimes they resort to personal attacks and using multiple accounts (Prewarblues1, 1953casestudy, Demojury73, and Derp10327 have similar writing styles on this talk page and the article history shows several blocked users). Anyway, I'll work on rewording the "Early life and career" section with due weight in mind and try to replace the "citation needed" tags. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, inexperienced researchers sometimes feel that their source is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE SOURCE.
And let's not confuse an attack on your reasearch with anything personal (unlike what you seem to want to do with the lead sentence). The goal here is to make sure that if something is asserted that it is cited accurately. As you may know, people will carelessly pull from a source such as Wikpedia and either not cite at all or cite incorrectly based on what they find here versus look into it further for themself.
In this case, I'm not even sure what you are debating anymore. It appears you have gone from saying that a self-published source is not good enough to source to questioning the entire validity of the information associated with the source. And I think we have already established that Ford is a legitamate source (again, see work in 2011 and the Library of Congress). Any sources that were subsequently publsihed that did not do their research properly (or cite properly) should not be cited here, as it diminishes the work of the original researchers.
For the case here (as it pertains to Johnson's DOB and parents) please see the trail here: Hall, Michael. “The Soul of a Man.” Texas Monthly, December 2010. https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-soul-of-a-man/, Ford, Shine a Light (2011), and even Michael Corcoran for his liner notes for the Alligator Records cover album in 2016, who states this information as fact with no citation.
So, please... write whatever you will here, because at some point your faulty reasoning will be proved as much and, at that time, I hope we can meet back here and you will make the necessary and overdue corrections. Until then... DejaVudu19 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The article currently has the following statement:

According to his death certificate, he was buried in Blanchette Cemetery, in Beaumont. The location of the cemetery had been forgotten until it was rediscovered in 2009. His grave site remains unknown but the researchers who identified the cemetery erected a monument there in his honor in 2010.
When I first read this paragraph, I was puzzled. How can an entire cemetery be forgotten? And if the location of Mr. Johnson's grave is known, then how can the location of his grave site be unknown?
Of course, I was being naive. As it turns out, various African-American cemeteries around the US are in a state of neglect and run down. This is a phenomenon which I, from Netherland, was not familiar with. In Netherland, we take care of our graves, all of them.
I attempted to clarify the matter, but I was swiftly reverted by User:DejaVudu19. I made a mistake in my research. I thought Mr. Johnson had one monument in Beaumont, but he in fact has *two*. He has a cenotaph (photo, somewhat exact location, close-up on Google Streetview), and a historical marker (photo, exact location, close-up on Google Streetview).
I've written a new text:

According to his death certificate, Johnson was buried in Blanchette Cemetery, in Beaumont, Texas. In the US, various African-American cemeteries from the segregated era became abandoned and neglected over time. As a result, there was some confusion as to where "Blanchette Cemetery" was located. In 2007, a pair of blues enthusiasts set out to find Johnson's final resting place. They eventually collected evidence that Blanchette Cemetery is "situated between Hegele and Ollie Streets cornered by Inca Street and Southern Pacific Road in Beaumont, Texas". This area is part of a complex of four graveyards now known as Pear Orchard Cemetery. No headstone was found yielding Johnson's name, and the exact location of his grave remains unknown. In 2010, a cenotaph for Johnson was placed on the Blanchette Cemetery plot of land.
In December 2010, a historical marker was placed in Johnson's honor near the Pilgrim Rest Missionary Baptist Church in Beaumont, Texas.

Any comments? - Manifestation (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, i just saw this comment and your comment on the page. I think what you wrote is good, but I think calling the people researchers is more accurate than just "blues enthusiasts." And I would also keep that these same people who looked into this area are the ones who are responsible for putting the cenotaph there. As for the cemetery issue, you are absolutely correct when you say that "African-American cemeteries around the US are in a state of neglect and run down." That was certainly the case with this area, as is outlined in the article you reference. Still today, I do not see a sign stating Blanchette, although it is good they have a historical marker now. But you could see where if there was not a sign designating what cemetery was what, that research would have to be conducted to prove which one was Blanchette, the one listed on Johnson's death certificate. So - i would say included those two bits ("researchers" and that they were the same people who found it) may clear up any confusion if one arrives with similiar questions you had. What do you think? DejaVudu19 (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
I called the pair blues enthusiasts because, according to this article, they were inspired to find the graves of Texas blues musicians after watching The Blues (film series). But Shane Ford also wrote a book about Mr. Johnson. So yeah, it would be accurate to call them researchers.
I've added a new bit of text to the article. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)