# Talk:Hank Williams

If there were a reliable source for Hank's father's claim of Native American ancestry, I haven't been able to find it. It would be fine to say he said he did, but there's no real evidence he did that I'm aware of. A lot of people have claimed to have Indian ancestry who actually don't. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

What about this? Hank: The Short Life and Long Country Road of Hank Williams by Mark Ribowsky (which is already cited in the article) says of Hank's paternal grandfather: "After Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Irvin was given an honorable discharge and allowed to return home, keeping his turncoat activities quiet. Irvin, who had some Indian blood on his father's side, that of Muskogee Creek and Tsalagi Cherokee, gave up farming [...]". Carlstak (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Carlstak I know we're using Ribowsky, but he's just one degree above Flippo in terms of reliability. He offers no evidence for his statement, which brings up the perennial Wikipedia conundrum: when a source is generally accepted but known to be flawed, which statements can you use in an encyclopedia article? Generally the custom is to determine if the statement is corroborated by other reliable sources. No other sources make such a positive statement, instead saying that Lon said it on occasion or that Hank's eye coloring suggested it, but none of the several genealogies on the web confirm it, and in fact contradict it. That, along with the documented attitude of the people of the early 19th century about intermarriage with Native Americans, makes me of the opinion that it shouldn't be stated positively in this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, Tom, I get it. What you say makes me think that the article shouldn't be using Ribowsky as a source at all, though. Carlstak (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Carlstak:@Tom Reedy: Good that this discussion got started. An user using an IP recently restored the lines that were removed earlier regarding Hank's native ancestry. At the time, I chose to remove it because the bibliography is not really clear about it. Outside of Ribowsky, we have a line on Escott's bio, page 4:
(Lon's) "His family came from North Carolina, and the surviving photo of his grandmother shows a woman with high Indian cheekbones and deep-set eyes. Hank always said he was part Indian, and there was probably some Creek or Cherokee on his father's side".
Now, based on that (and coming from a reliable source like Escott) I would just add something to the article indicating that Hank often mentioned it, or that he was possibly a descendant of Native Americans. Otherwise, I do think we'll have the constant back and forth with people who are going to bring up the Native American Hall of Fame, or the peripheral sources (previously cited) that indicate that he had that type of ancestry as a fact.
{Other than that, regarding his paternal grandfather and the war, "Williams, Roger M." (page 4) suggests: "His father was also a civil war veteran-on the union side. He joined the U.S. Navy before the war broke out, went AWOL in Boston, was caught in Richmond, and spent the war on an Union ship." Then goes on to quote Lon saying "He still had an honorable discharge , a lot of my old uncles said they were sorry they didn't join the Union side in the beginning." Now, I truly don't know where Ribowsky got that about him switching sides during the conflict. Shall we remove that he served "first on the confederate side"?--GDuwenHoller! 17:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
One thing that strikes me is that this is a biographical encyclopedia article about Hank Williams, not his father, and we don't have to include every tiny detail that biographers dig up to fill out their books. Yes, they are interesting, kind sorta, but they don't really have much to do with Hank and his music, and his music is the main reason he's a notable figure.
Every source is going to have iffy and unproven statements; the job of an editor is to weigh them and decide what has to be included in order to have a comprehensive treatment. For example, every biography of Hank says he won a talent contest at the age of 13 or 14. The only evidence for that is a short article his mother wrote after his death; he never said it, yet it's a good story that seems likely and is quoted as fact by every biographer, so we have to include it, even though some biographers have noted her unreliability and tendency to embellish when recalling facts bout her son. His mother also said she made the comment that inspired him to write "I Saw The Light," but his bass player says he made the comment.
Things like that means we have to discriminate between what biographers say, and when it doesn't make that much difference, either qualify them or leave them out completely. (His WCOV radio career is never mentioned either, even though he had his own program on that station before he had one on WSFA, but again, Wiki policy says we have to follow the published sources, not the primary sources.) Anyway, I'm just rattling now, and I think I've made my point. Cheers. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Many of the details that are mentioned along the different biographies are for sure better to be left alone, there's no doubt about that. I also do understand that it is interesting enough to readers like the one who restored the sentences about Hank's ancestry (while also being upset about it being removed without an explanation or discussion, as it was made clear by his/her comment on the log). When available, it can provide some interesting background information on a person (their culture, traditions, etc.) You can see similar details included within the featured articles of other prominent musicians such as  Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, Michael Jackson, Jimi Hendrix or Paul McCartney just to name a few.--GDuwenHoller! 19:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Terribly minor detail that I am not sure needs addressing, but I wanted to record it for posterity.  In the "Personal Details" section, Williams is listed as living with Ray Price in Nashville at the corner of Westwood Dr and Natchez Trace.  This detail is cited and is consistent in the source document.  However, Westwood Drive and Natchez Trace do not intersect in Nashville - Westwood Avenue and Natchez Trace do. DAWGinRoswell 12:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that the name or configuration has changed in the intervening 71 years since then? The Texas State Historical Association website cited says "Westwood Drive". Carlstak (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
No, it's Westwood Avenue on both present-day and 1952 maps. The exact address is 2718 Westwood. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah. Carlstak (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)