# Talk:Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song)


= Steve Miller =

Steve Miller did a song named "Who Do You Love?" but it is a completely different song and not a cover of Bo Diddley's.Alex 09:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Whilst the linked video is incredibly well done, I question the need to link to a youtube video of a random individual covering the song in question in his bedroom . . .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.71.106 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) 
I would like to suggest adding Metropolitan Blues All Stars out of Lexington KY as one of the bands who covered Who Do You Love?-- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


= Tim Buckley =
Buckley did a song called Who Do You Love but (like Miller above) it's not a cover but an original song with different lyrics and melody.
Savage Pink (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


= Writer? =
1st sentance says it was written & performed by Bo Diddley, but the box (and an album sleeve I have) says writer was Ellis MacDaniel. 86.175.136.123 (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ellas McDaniel was Bo Diddley's real name. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


= Usage of "sic" after "Who Do You Love?" =
I am currently in a dispute with another editor over their usage of sic after the song title (i.e. "Who Do You Love?" sic).
For reference: The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written") added immediately after a quoted word or phrase (or a longer piece of text), indicates that the quoted words have been transcribed exactly as spelled or presented in the original source, complete with any erroneous spelling or other presentation. The usual purpose is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in the transcribed material do not arise from transcription errors, and the errors have been repeated intentionally, i.e., that they are reproduced exactly as set down by the original writer or printer.
If you do not believe there is any error or mistake you are on my team.
The dispute is a grammar-related matter.
My position is that in modern English the usage of "who" as the object of a verb is entirely acceptable and the usage of sic is unnecessary and will lead to confusion since most readers will not even register an error or mistake. The other editor's position is that "whom" is the only "correct" form for the object of a verb and that the usage of sic will prevent confusion by indicating the "incorrect" usage of "who" is presented as is.
I insist on keeping the sic off the page and the other editors insists on keeping it on the page.
I back up my position with the following:

The actual song title is "Who Do You Love?" and implying it should be "Whom Do You Love?" is itself an error.
The other editor's sic-ing is specific to this article. The pervasive style on Wikipedia is to let the song title be. Should we be sic-ing "In da Club" sic by 50 Cent, "Tha Shiznit" sic by Snoop Dogg sic, "Dont Look Back" sic the Bob Dylan documentary? Or "Who Do You Love?" sic the film? Sigur Ros has an album titled "( )". Should we sic that?
Usage of "whom" in modern English is in precipitous decline. Many don't use "whom" at all or know its use well enough to use it "correctly".
Linguists since the early 1900s have been noticing the death of "whom".
"Whom" will be, if it is not already, just as archaic as thou, doest, chuse, etc.
Bo Diddley used a dialect in the song and the usage of "who" for an object is not an "error" in his dialect. The Queen of England did not write and sing the song. A black man from Mississippi did. Expecting him to use "whom" is absurd. And pretending it is an "error" borders on linguistic discrimination.
Languages change all the time. Acting like there are "rules" that are set in stone is ridiculous. In the 13th century thee/thou/thy/thine was used for the second person singular pronouns and you/your/yours was used for the second person plural pronouns. Back then using "you" for the second person singular pronoun would have been considered "incorrect". "You" evolved and assumed the position of the second person singular pronoun as well. The usage of "you" as the second person singular pronoun is certainly not an "error" anymore. Likewise, the usage of "who" has evolved and assumed the objective use in addition to the subjective use and should not be considered an "error".
If we act like "Whom Do You Love?" is more "correct" than "Who Do You Love?" should we be acting like "Whom Doest Thou Love?" is more "correct" than "Whom Do You Love?"
The decline of "whom" has already fallen to a point of no return and no matter how much effort is put into resurrecting "whom" it will still be as extinct as "thee/thou/thy/thine". We don't need zombie grammar.
Additionally, I argue that maintaining "whom" is the only "correct" usage is like maintaining "thee" is the only "correct" usage of the second person singular pronoun. In modern English-speaking society someone who said "thou art fair, o my beloved" would be viewed as quite unusual as opposed to someone saying "you are lovely, dear" or something similar.
I agree that at one time using "who" as the objective would not have been standard but like "you" has adapted "who" has also adapted to the point where using it as the objective is standard and will not confuse any English speakers. No one is confused by someone using "you" instead of "thee" and no one is confused by someone using "who" instead of "whom". The language has simply evolved.
Modern English dictionaries point out this dispute in the usage notes for who/whom and the consensus is that using "who" all the time is entirely acceptable.
Our full discussion is on the talk page of the user Tippx. I would like feedback from others because I feel we've descended into an edit war.  
Dabepa (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think using "(sic)" in a song name is a little tacky.  The important thing is to get the song name right, and grammar be damned.  I doubt anyone is suggesting putting (sic) by the names of Negro spirituals; that would be offensive for sure.  Those are my thoughts anyway. Shocking Blue (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Tom Rush is listed in the final paragraph, but I remember a version of this song back in the 1960's that I used to hear on the radio that sounds just like his recording. I wonder if it made the charts?  Somebody's must have.  Shocking Blue (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Rush's version appeared at number 113 in Billboard's "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" chart on March 27, 1971.[1] The Woolies garage version made number 97 on March 18, 1967.[2]  QMS (1969) and Juicy Lucy (1970) are mentioned in the article.  Added Rush and Woolies chart numbers. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Good job; thanks!  Sure seems like I heard that song a lot more than those chart positions would indicate, but maybe it was popular among the DJs in NC where I grew up.  Shocking Blue (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently there are at least two different releases of Rush's WDYL: Elektra EK-45604 (2:39)[3] and Elektra ‎– EKS-45718 (3:22)[4].  AllMusic shows a 3:25 WDYL on his 1966 album Take a Little Walk with Me.[5] Richie Unterberger describes it as "electric rock ... Tom adapted an uncharasteristically low and playful growl for Diddley's "Who Do You Love," graced by early fuzz guitar distortion" with the same musicians who backed Dylan in 1965.[6]  Billboard lists a single version (Elektra 604) as a regional best seller at number 39 in Boston on May 14, 1966.[7] The highest showing for Elektra 45718 appears to be number 105 on the Bubbling Under chart on March 20, 1971.[8]. A live version was performed for Rush's Celebrates 50 Years of Music 2013 album and DVD.[9]  Will add to article (maybe get enough to turn this into a GA). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As the article looks right now, the links in footnotes 6, 7, 9, 10, 23 and 24 don't work, and the bibliography items on points 4, 7 and 11 have nothing point at them. (Also, there's a dablink in footnote 46.) Hope this is helpful, and good luck with the GA review. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, J Milburn.  Fixed – unlinked author names, etc. that seemed to be causing the problems.  I use "author = Hal Leonard" the way I use "author = Billboard" and "author = Rolling Stone" (publication/company names) when the writer is not specified.  Is there a better way to do this? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question; I have used this style in the past, but I now worry that it may be more trouble than it's worth. I'm not the best person to ask! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who Do You Love? (Bo Diddley song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 18:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


### Infobox
The single cover image requires an alt description, but since this is more of a pic of the single, a caption will have to do, so please add one
Added. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
Please insert "recorded" in between "a song" and "by American rock and roll pioneer..."
Done, but with "written" and used "recorded" with date. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Did this song reach the record charts? I'm asking this because it sounds like you're inferring that, yet there's no "Charts" section
Added text with source in "Release and reception" to support "none of his various recordings reached the record charts" in lead (seems appropriate, since there are no charts). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


### Background and lyrics
#### Paragraph 2
I don't think mentioning the lyrics part from "I walked forty-seven miles..." To "Who do you love?" Is necessary; I'd remove it
Incorporated some into the text with refs instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


### Composition and recording
#### Paragraph 2
"Bo Diddley's characteristic sound processing effects are on display -- echoey vocal and tremolo-laden rhythm electric guitar." --> "Bo Diddley's characteristic sound processing effects are on display, accompanied by echoey vocals and a tremolo-laden rhythm electric guitar."
Clarified – the effects are used on the vocal and guitar. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


### Release and reception
All great!


### Renditions
#### Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks
"Except near the border in the Great Lakes area, the record was largely unnoticed in the US and did not appear on the Billboard charts." --> Unsourced
Added RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
"Except near the border in the Great Lakes area, the record was largely unnoticed in the US and did not appear on the Billboard charts." --> Remove "in the US" as mentioning it near the Great Lakes area already speaks of the United States
Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Quicksilver Messenger Service
Fantastic work!


#### George Thorogood and the Destroyers
Please add the release year after the album name Move It on Over in parentheses
Added (& removed from the beginning of the sentence). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


### Recognition and legacy
It must have peaked at number five, not 105, as the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart is only 25 positions and serves as an extension to the Hot 100; however, it doesn't necessarily mean 105, although it's implied
The actual chart begins at number 101 (and ends at 130).[10]  I think we should stay with the source. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


### End of GA Review:
Great article with very minor changes. On hold for seven days to allow for changes. Thank you and good luck. Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC).

Carbrera, thanks for the review.  This may be a record! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Ojorojo Thanks for your speediness! I will be passing now! Glad to make records! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)