Talk:Blind Willie Johnson

message: Johnson's records have very good sound quality compared to S.James, C.Patton, S.House & B.L.Jefferson. So, have the original metal masters survived? --128.214.205.4 10:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masters

message: Re-worked the main sections for clarity, grammar, and more neutral language. -- Denstat 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization of material

message: I'm removing the "Although he is called a bottleneck guitarist,..." sentence from the first paragraph; it doesn't really belong in the intro, and the nature of his slider is covered later in the article.
--RobHutten 23:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bottleneck/ring/slide 

message: It has been proposed that Willie Johnson be renamed and moved to Willie Johnson (disambiguation) so that Willie Johnson can be redirected to Blind Willie Johnson.  Please discuss at Talk:Willie Johnson.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Let them be no doubt that White Stripes covering this one here is an awesome awesome clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z7QBmqa0PY  I remove the 'citation needed' thing.  Walking thhe blues/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walking the blues (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John the revelator 

message: Jusy here to say that I enjoyed reading this article Sir Floyd (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loved Reading the Aricle! 

message: I've added to his list of aliases "The Blind Pilgrim," used on the Anchor reissues of some of Willie's tunes.  This can be easily verified via the illustrated Blind Willie Johnson discography, linked to in the article, which has images of the labels themselves.  As only the word blind was placed within quotes in the other AKA entries, I was not sure if the new name warrented their use and so did not employ any. Svart kultur (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also Known As 

message: What? Why? And no. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes no sense.  The mergefrom template was placed on the "Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground" article, suggesting it be merged into Blind Willie Johnson, to which I would be opposed.  But, here, where we should be having a discussion of that very bad idea, we have a header which seems to suggest that Blind Willie Johnson should be merged into "Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground," which is an even worse idea.  So, can we please be clear as to what is being suggested?  Either way, I am opposed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The DWTN page reads like a biography of Johnson. The Johnson page is 1/3 info about DWTN. That to me makes no sense.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Blind Willie Johnson needs to be expanded to include discussion of his other music. Can we trust you to do it then? --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it ok if I keep the biographical info in DWTN cursory? I'll put the bulk of the info about who's praised and covered that song on the song page.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. I disagree with that. I've written two other song articles and in both some information about the artist is included. The Blind Willie Johnson article needs work. Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground does not. --Moni3 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Atlantictire, before you remove a large chunk of information from this article (and hopefully not paste it directly into the song article), you should probably get hold of sources about Johnson's life. Music libraries, Blues anthologies, and other trade journals should give you an overall perspective on the amount of information dedicated to the song. I'm concerned you haven't checked the sources for Johnson's article and are doing a gnome-job because it simply looks off. Johnson's article should be treated respectfully and written with the best sources. --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into [[Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground]] 

message: I am working on them, but this one i cannot even figure out: Obek and Ford, 2010  does anyone know what the heck it is a reference to? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  references in poor shape 

message: it's not an ad for the book, it's a cited take on the incident from a reliable secondary source.  i know that beal doesn't "present an argument" for this, i'm using argue in the sense of presenting a viewpoint, a standard usage of the word.  do you have any other reasons for thinking that this passage should be removed?  obviously the arrest needs to be in the article because it's discussed in a number of sources.  — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  timothy beal's take on arrest 

message: note for the sake of the future:  this discussion concerns this diff here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough, but I'm feeling that the way that sources are used on wikipedia supports the inclusion of this material.  that is, if a reliable secondary source states such and such, then such and such is inclusible in an article.  i'm thinking specifically about the bit that says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles.  beal's a professor at a respectable university, he has a section in his book which discusses johnson, the book's publisher is respectable, so the information can go in, supported by that alone.  wikipedia policy is generally opposed to editors interpreting primary sources on their own, i believe because that would take us down the rabbit hole of what interpretation to place on documents and sources.  this way, we let the professionals sort out what the primary sources mean, and we quote all of their points of view: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.  i'm sorry about not putting in the page number, and it was a library book so it's too late now for now, but the index should allow you to check it easily enough.  also, points of view can go into articles as long as they're identified as points of view of the authors of reliable sources, which is why i chose to phrase it in such a way as to make it clear that this was beal's interpretation of the event, rather than something being stated as a fact.  — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: ok, if it's the page number that's bothering you, i put it in.  it's perfectly ordinary to cite books without page numbers if the location of the information is clear from the book's index, but it's a moot issue now. (also, i wasn't suggesting that you put the page number in, but was asserting that the information is accessible with the information given, so that a page number didn't seem necessary to me).  the reasoning about using secondary sources is not my reasoning, it's the consensus of wikipedia editors, although i personally also agree with it, even though there are some ways in which it's not ideal. it is true that beal's not a blues scholar, but a theologian.  however, i think it's important to remember that johnson was not just a blues singer, but a preacher as well.  it seems reasonable to me to use sources that address that aspect of the man's career.  if there's some kind of consensus that the sentence and the source should be removed, of course, i'll let it go, but i'd be surprised if that happened.  we shall see, i suppose.  thanks for talking about this, anyway.  — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timothy Beal reference 

message: "Blanchette Cemetery (which is the cemetery listed on the death certificate but location previously unknown) was officially located by two researchers in 2009. In 2010, those same researchers erected a monument to Johnson in the cemetery, but his exact gravesite remains unknown."  
This part is not true, well maybe the word officially, which really doesn't mean anything. I know where Blanchette was back in 1990s (whenever I found the death certificate) and spent two or three days tramping through the graveyard looking for some sign of his grave. It may be possible to find it by going backwards, find the grave, and the pull the death certificate, to identify the sections of the cementary, but this would take a lot of time, and may not work, but it is possible, at least to get an idea of where he is buried. I did find a Johnson, but it was not Blind Willie. Some of the graves had only small metal frames with typed names inside, and these would have not lasted long, and if this is what what used to mark his grave, it is no surprise it is no longer there. 
,it is a great subject I don't know how to sign out with the squiggles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.4.205 (]]) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Blanchette Cemetery

message: Removed excess that was added in reference to article posted online. This included a specific date of marriage (which cannot be backed up by evidence) and pieces of a conversation conducted by Sam Charters. The audio can be located and listened to for ones self but it was not printed accurately and moreover, it is extraneous. Bottom line is the article mentioned provides no NEW information on Johnson so if the "information" is to be included, it should be done so with the orginal source with respect to the original author.1953casestudy (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Reference to recent removal 

message: I really don't know what to say about the person, TheGracefulSlick, who decided to completely re-write nearly this entire page. I'm sure the intentions were well-meaning (and some of the changes are welcome; the problem is the majority - facts are wrong and sourced poorly.) Tried to fix small areas of concern but because of the breadth of the re-write it is nearly impossible to do so. It appears, at least to me, that this was the intention and instead of a collaborative effort this was an effort to take ownership of an "article" as he refers to it, on his user page. Nevertheless, it is better to outline the difficulty than to state it - so here we go and then over time maybe it can amend itself.
1) everything looks OK with the changes to me except for the term "chest voice" and everything I detail ahead. This term is almost always previously cited as "false bass." Another issue obviously is with stating "he had little wealth or recognition in his lifetime." This statement has no basis in fact. We do not know what his level of wealth is and secondly, how would we define "wealth"? By today's standards? No matter the answer and although he was probably poor for most of his life - we do not know. Secondly, he did have recognition in his life. At one point he was one of the biggest selling artists in the "race" records category. In addition, many performers heard his music and covered his songs. And obviously the biggest complaint I have with regards to this re-write is when the author concludes that his life is "left to speculation." Much of it was but this re-write takes this meaning to a whole other level, as I will outline. Also "overtime" is actually - over time, if we are to speak of a passing of time. And last, Sam Charters did not get much right at all and toward the end of his life, admits as much. 
2) Regarding the second paragraph, there is no strong evidence Johnson's music had much of a revival in the 1960s. Yes, Rev. Gary Davis did play Johnson's music as did a few others like Rev. Pearly Brown. But there was a so-called "blues revival" going on anyway. This was mainly due to the release of Harry Smith's Anthology and the folk movement but please provide evidence as it pertains directly to Johnson. Again, "overtime" is used, instead of over time. Next - where is the evidence that "Dark Was the Night" is "widely-covered"? There is one major one which, if included, should maybe give credit to that performer, but that song is not widely covered by any stretch. And if it is, please provide evidence. 
3) As it pertains to the date of birth - if you are still going to keep the date of birth at January 25, Pendleton, not Independence would be the place of birth. All the recent evidence points to this as being the place and the January 25th date comes from this same evidence. Independence is the old place based upon the death certificate which also included a different date of birth. 
Next, we do not know who his parents were or what their names were and especially what they did for a living or when they died. Until solid proof exists, it is better not to include this information as fact. Unless of course, you can provide such evidence or a citation where a researcher can prove such information exists. (to be continued)Demojury73 (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  With A Grain of Salt 

message: 4)  "Around 1900, his family, which according to blues historian Steven Calt included at least one younger brother named Carl, moved to the agriculturally-rich community of Marlin where Johnson spent most of his childhood. There, the Johnson family attended church -- most likely the Marlin Missionary Baptist Church -- every Sunday, a practice which had a lasting impact on Johnson and fueled his desire to be ordained as a Baptist minister.[1] When Johnson was five years-old, his father gave him his first instrument: a cigar box guitar." - this whole part is complete speculation and I direct you to what I wrote above as it pertains to evidence. Providing conclusive dates with no evidence is not only poor research but dangerous as it pertains to future dissemination of information. This includes the year his family supposedly moved to what church he "most likely" attended to him being a "ordained as a Baptist minister." There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, unless, again, you can provide it? We also do not know what gifts his father gave him. The only thing that is true and is cited is what Calt wrote in the liner notes, which are also not cited and even that was told to him by bluesman Thomas Shaw. And without providing context to that information, not sure the relevance. 
5)And finally, as I believe I have made a good enough argument already for a careful reexamination of this edit, I will deal with some of the life info - We know that Johnson was "married" at least twice. In addition, there is no evidence he married Angeline at all, much less twice. She claims, in the recordings with Sam Charters, that she married him in the late '20s and was with him until his death. Based on census and recording data, we know this not to be true. We only know that she was with him (for sure) at the end of his life in Beaumont. One also left out is that the musician L.C. Robinson also said that Johnson was married to his sister. So if relationship data is to be included, I believe we should not be so definitive but concede that not everything can be known for sure and also be thorough with ALL of what has been in the public domain. The next sentence states he earned a "meager" wage. Meager in comparison to what? And what was that wage? This is an adjective that is a guess at best but is probably best being excluded and just say that he "performed." The next line is not cited correctly and double cited at that. That information was first published in a Michael Corcoran article and was previously cited correctly but now has disappeared. In addition, "no hospital would admit Johnson because of his visual impairment" should be reverted back to  "In an interview, Angeline said that she tried to take him to a hospital, which refused to admit him because he was blind. Other sources report that the refusal was due to his being black" as being black was probably the more likely reason, another thing Sam Charters took on Angeline's word but, as was in the original, both explanations should be included. And finally, you state that, "Over the course of the year, his condition steadily worsened until Johnson died on September 18, 1945" - what evidence do you have that a fire occurred a year before his death? In fact, research published by Michael Hall shows that there is no record of a fire at all. That certainly does not disprove that there wasn't one but it also confirms that there is no evidence that there was one in 1944 or that Johnson's "condition steadily worsened." 
I could probably go on but this is plenty of typing for now. The reason maybe the original author did not find "sense" in the subtle change was that they did not conduct their research very thoroughly. They have used old sources for new information and new sources for old information. Seeing this, I would look at the user's page and question all other "articles" as they call them. But seeing this as their article is part of the original problem, I believe. Like any research, it is best when peer reviewed and in this case, it is supposed to be collaborative effort to make sure we get it right. To say that an edit with an explanation, "literally makes no sense" is a childish, unacademic statement. Please, combat it with evidence not ad hominem attacks. Now, if you can argue - with evidence for your claims (and not outdated or with sources floating around the Internet but not validated) please include. But saying something makes no sense is just not a sound and factual rebuttal. With all the speculation, let's not add more. Demojury73 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  With A Grain of Salt (Cont'd) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issue With Alternative Theory For Visual Impairment 

message: 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.
Not married to my edit, just thought I’d run it by. Thank you.RayJ (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , 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)
replies: text: date of death is wrong 62.98.138.76 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Record Not Listed In Discography 

message: 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)
replies: text: The story behind the discovery of his burial place is recounted in this article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of cemetary was not unknown or lost