Talk:Poor Murdered Woman

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lyrics[edit]

If you can find the original version of the lyrics along with a source, we can include that, as the original song is in the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the original song would be "in the public domain" as the brickmaker who composed it probably never even wrote it down? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Diannaa. How are these lyrics covered by copyright if the song was likely written in 1834, or the very latest before 1908? Can you tell me who would now hold that copyright? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC) p.s. how do we know the "original version" was even written down? A "brickmaker from Leatherhead Common", in the 1800s, is very likely to have been illiterate and the song would have been passed to singers wholly by means of the oral tradition.[reply]

You noted that "These lyrics are those used by Shirley Collins and the Albion Country Band, in her version of the song on the 1971 album No Roses". How different are they from the original lyrics? Has a new copyright been generated due to the alterations? — Diannaa (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so Has a new copyright been generated due to the alterations? How could we tell? I don't think it really matters which version is presented in the article. I guess the earliest printed publication is likely to have been Broadwood (1908) here. But that online version is not previewable. Or possibly in the Journal of the Folk Song Society, Vol. I, p. 186. As far as I know, Collins sings the original version, wholly unaltered. And, as far as I know, she has never published the lyrics in written form, she's just sung them, probably from the mid-1960s onwards. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few other articles on Roud folksongs that have the full lyrics. Which is why I had assumed there was no copyright problem. Do they also all now need to have the lyrics removed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 20,000 Rould folk songs, many of which have articles. They would all have to be examined on a case by case basis. I am not interested in doing that. Also, the fact that copyright problems may exist in other articles is no reason to add more.

Regarding Collins' version, we really can't assume it's the original version. When it doubt, leave it out is my rule of thumb. — Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I was arguing that because "copyright problems may exist in other articles" that was good "reason to add more." That really wasn't my motivation. So can we assume that Broadwood (1908) is the "original (published) version"? And if so, the lyrics should be copied from there, with a full attribution? But, just to be clear, if Collins' version is not identical, but has a few words altered, does that mean she now holds a copyright for that? How many different words don't matter? In any case, Martin Carthy recorded his version three years before hers, so we'd have to consider how his version compared as well? Collins may have sung the Carthy version. Does he hold the copyright? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the copyright issue, the lyrics don't belong on Wikipedia, per WP:NOTLYRICS. If you've located a provably public domain version, please consider adding it to Wikisource instead. — Diannaa (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That's a far simpler answer. And I suppose one that would apply equally to all the other Roud song articles. It seems that most of my questions above will remain unanswered. Just for completeness, here's a link to the Collins version published not by her, but by genius.com. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GENIUS, "Song lyrics, annotations and descriptions on Genius are mostly user-generated content and are thus generally unreliable". Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if lyrics are protected by copyright, for the purposes of illustration, is it not permitted to use a fair portion of them?The Raggle Taggle Gypsy, for example, uses two separate lyrics portions, one of two verses and one of four. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Third-party[edit]

Which of the sources has prompted the addition of Template:Third-party? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade, I wonder could you elucidate? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, @Martinevans123! Thanks for asking! At the time I placed the tag, the page had seven sources, five of which were YouTube videos of track recordings, which count as primary sources and therefore, do not establish notability. A sixth source (Topic Records) is from the producer of one of the recordings and as such, is not independent. This would leave the Mainly Norfolk source, which I'd say is OK as far as connection to the subject, though it has a lot of interviews, which also count as primary sources. Ultimately, using sources that are closely associated with the subject is OK, but they do not establish notability, which is what determines whether something is worthy of having its own Wikipedia page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Significa. Mainly Norfolk covers most things, the YouTube videos are really more for added detail. If you still have issues, I'd be grateful for any advice on what could be changed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123: My main concern (and the reason for the tag) is establishing notability. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines for songs, "are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label", which aligns with general notability guidelines. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a surprise that multiple modern recordings of a song do not in any way establish notability? Perhaps other sources can be found. Do you intend to nominate this article for deletion? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123: Could you find reviews that discuss the modern recordings? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possible. This source looks quite useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Significa liberdade. I was wondering if there were any other changes or additions that you could suggest that might allow the template to be removed? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]