Talk:Waterloo (Stonewall Jackson song)

Original research

The assertion that "Waterloo" derives from "Leave It There" is an assertion of the editor, not backed by a reliable source. As such it meets the definition of original research—it reaches a "conclusion not supported by the source(s)." The links cited explain the issue: the sources cited don't make that assertion. Please find a reliable source to back the assertion. Regards Tapered (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course "the sources cited don't make that assertion." The sources I quoted were the sheet music of the original "Leavel It There" and the sheet music of the plagiarised "Waterloo." A simple comparison of the two melody lines shows them to be exactly the same.

This is far from an isolated case: country music is full of songs whose melodies were taken from existing hymns composed by well-known gospel songwriters. I wouldn't mind tht, as long as the original writers were given credit.

Your claim that "Waterloo" was "written by John D. Loudermilk and Marijohn Wilkin" is just an assertion, based no doubt on original research, i.e., by seeking out the sheet music. Even though the sheet music for "Waterloo" may claim their authorship, this is a false claim with regard to the melody line, as is proven by the earlier publication of "Leave It There" with the exact same melody line. I would have thought that Wikipedia had a duty to note such instances of barefaced robbery.

If the sheet music for "Waterloo," published in 1959, is a "reliable source" for the claim that Loudermilk and Wilkin wrote it, then the sheet music for the earlier "Leave It There," published in 1916, is just as reliable a source for the claim that Charles A. Tindley wrote that, and this claim is accepted on the Wikipedia page devoted to Tindley. The fact that both tunes have the same melody is undeniable by anyone who bothers to compare the two published sheets.

It is ludicrous to require a writer to go and "publish" such an example of musical thievery in an article somewhere, so that it may be then quoted at second hand in Wikipedia. I could do it, of course — but why waste time playing such childish games ? You really should try and grow up, just a little.Percebushby (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Please note the title heading, and please read up on Original Research. That's exactly what your conclusions are. As far as my assertion of Loudermilk et al's authorship, see Waterloo, BMI. That's a Reliable Source. Without Regards Tapered (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Need to type the song title into the Title line. Won't link to individual song. Tapered (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Percebushby: According to wikipedia policy explained at WP:SYNTH you cannot take two sources (for example two pieces of sheet music), compare them, draw a conclusion, and place that in the article. It doesn't matter how factual or seemingly obvious the conclusion is. In general, as WP:OR explains, material added to wikipedia must be paraphrased from reliable sources as explained at WP:RS. You must find a source that explicitly states that the music is identical or plagiarized rather than drawing that conclusion yourself. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DIY! If readers/editors vist Faded Love, they'll see the right way to do this. Finally after 6 years, I found an authoritative source to validate this famous song's derivation. Today. You'll note my observation on the Talk page, 6 years ago, that it's derivative. Tapered (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tapered. "If readers/editors vist Faded Love, they'll see the right way to do this," you say. Unfortunately they won't, because you're incapable of posting a valid link to your new "authoritative source." If they do a bit of original research, they might well find their way to the claim you accept as authoritative, but the authority of which simply rests on the fact that some individual has posted it to his blog. I could have done the same myself, but I don't play your stupid games. ("Without Regards," you say. Dear me, what a zinger!)

@DIY Editor. You say, above: "You must find a source that explicitly states that the music is identical or plagiarized rather than drawing that conclusion yourself." You will find that I did NOT make this claim in my original edit. In deference to Wikipedia's sensibilities (!) the actual wording I used was, "Although it is credited to John D. Loudermilk and Marijohn Wilkin, the melody owes more than a little to "Leave It There" (also known as "Take Your Burden to the Lord"), a still-popular gospel hymn composed by Charles A. Tindley in 1916." This is hardly a claim of plagiarization (which I have reserved for these Talk pages only). Published in January 2014, this statement has stood without challenge for almost three years — until Tapered, a self-appointed Wikicop on his personal PC power trip, saw fit to edit it out.

Is it any wonder Wikipedia has such a tarnished reputation among the general public ? Percebushby (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be even more tarnished if every passing fool were allowed to add their pet theories to articles.92.5.94.43 (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Percebushby: Do you have a source that explicitly states the melody "owes more than a little" to the hymn? Your own conclusions from examining sheet music are not a source. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Percebushby: It's not possible to link directly to articles @ LoneStar Magazine. I've fixed "Faded Love" to enable readers to see the article. Thanks, sort of, for the heads up. I included "Without Regard" to let you know that I don't enjoy your patronizing attitude. You're flailing at two experienced editors trying to illustrate core Wikipedia principles. I'm a curmudgeon myself, but I've learned to approach civility, a bit, here @ Wikipedia. I've also learned the guidelines of the place. Why not give it a try?

I've restored songwriter credit Loudermilk in the body of the article. Please let it remain. Tapered (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)