Talk:On Springfield Mountain

Changes

I have made some changes to the article. Uncited claims have been removed or consolidated. I have removed the "parody" lyrics, which were also unreferenced and were not obviously distinguished. This article is lacking reliable and consistent citations; I will be doing further research to try to pull it together. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 18:34, 31-03-2013 UTC 18:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot locate additional information on two sources

I cannot verify the information in two sources because there is not adequate citation to locate them. Per WP:Offline, a better citations for these sources is essential, for if they cannot be located then this is as good as no citation at all. The citations in question are:

Carl Howlett, "On Springfield Mountains" in The Country Press Vol 2 No. 11, Nov 21, 1961.
Springfield Union, Aug 30, 1982.

I speculate they may be published in Massachusetts given the topic, but otherwise am at a loss. Does anyone have further information on these sources? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 23:43, 31-03-2013 UTC 23:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are local newspaper articles published in Massachusetts newspapers, yes. The way I read WP:Offline, it seems to suggest that offline sources are just as acceptable as online sources. See also WP:FUTON. At any rate, the Howlett article is reproduced in full on p. 61 of the Meuse source. btw Your latest research looks pretty good from what I can see, especially concerning additional titles for the ballad. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is important to cite offline sources. However, the newspaper article has not been digitized and is presumably only available for public access in physical archives. Additionally, the lack of publication location makes it difficult to ascertain the source either work.. If it is reproduced in Meuse's book, then why not simply cite that work? This seems more in accordance with WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, as well. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 02:42, 1-04-2013 UTC 02:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Country Press was a Hampden newspaper, and the Springfield Union, a Springfield newpaper. Does that help? Since Meuse p. 61 is already cited a couple of times, why not tell the original source where Howlett gave his view? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! It is important to provide the location of publication when citing a source; for example, when requesting an article by citation through interlibrary loan, often times library institutions will have no other way of distinguishing publications of similar titles. The same could be said for Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. I'll check out the Meuse citations when I can get a hold of the book and hopefully be able to update the citations, unless you'd like to -- I've been using ProveIt to add citations, perhaps you'd find the tool helpful as well. I think at the least a Meuse citation should added where he reprints work. It is generally considered ethical and honest in academia to cite the immediate source being accessed, and not reproduce citations provided by a secondary work. What do you think? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 03:07, 1-04-2013 UTC 03:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen configurations such as: [Carl Howlett, "On Springfield Mountains" in The {Hampden) Country Press, Vol 2 No. 11, Nov 21, 1961. Reproduced in Meuse 2012 p. 61.] That would certainly be possible, and would probably assist researchers in locating a copy of that article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meuse as a dubious source

I was recently able to obtain a copy of Meuse's Mr. Cunningham's house was built first by borrowing it from the Hampden Free Public library, which seems to be the organization which published the volume as a compendium of research by a local historian who passed away several years ago. Although the volume contains invaluable research done on the Merrick family history through a local town clerk's office, as well as important reprints of articles related to the ballad (On) Springfield Mountain, some of his claims regarding its ethnomusicology and place in folklore (e.g., "The incident is of considerable importance as the resulting ballad is considered by many historians to be the first ballad or folk song ever written in Northern America") do not provide sources at all, and are not claims I have seen repeated in any of the articles on the song published in academic works such as the Flanders ballad collection and articles pertaining to the song in The Journal of American Folklore. For this reason combined with its near method of self-publication (see: WP:SELFPUBLISH, I feel that the work may be inappropriate as a primary source for some parts of the article, and try to find alternative or supplementary sources when possible. Thoughts? Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 04:27, 20-04-2013 UTC 04:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me like a typical case of "If you don't like something a source says, find some way to stigmatize the source, by using our own authority and expertise as wikipedians to act judgemental over the published authors, since we know they're wrong, and we're right and smarter than they are". So now we are stretching definitions a bit to call something a "NEAR method of self publication"? What the heck does that mean anyway? Either it is, or it isn't (it most certainly isn't in this case, and Meuse was a revered and most reliable authority on all aspects and details of local Hampden history) but this is going too far! The statement is that the ballad On Springfield Mountain (I have yet to see any source calling it just "Springfield Mountain" omitting the "On") "is considered by MANY HISTORIANS to be the first ballad" in America. He didn't name any of the historians who stated this, no. But a few minutes spent on Google should have been enough to corroborate this statement easily. If you have a source specifically arguing otherwise, we can include that, too, alongside the Meuse claim that it is considered the first. If it's just you arguing otherwise, I'm afraid we cannot include it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that I do find Meuse's discussion and contributions to be very insightful at times, and I acknowledge his status as a local historian.

First of all, you are correct that I don't agree with all of Meuse's musings; however, this should not deter us from including him in the article. I also disagree with Phillips Barry on many counts, but his work on the song (which Meuse draws from) is significant enough to its history that I have included it with what I feel is an appropriate disclaimer. Meuse's comments on folklore are uncited and he is not an established author in the field to my knowledge, but I am open to being convinced otherwise given credible sources. Nonetheless, his research on local history is remarkable and rare enough to be considered a very important contribution to the topic.

By "near self-publication," I meant that his work appears to be compiled by a library as a compedium of his own research, and that library is not to my knowledge particularly established as an academic publishing house -- I could be wrong about this, but it has been difficult for me to track down their other publications and credentials. So although Meuse did not outright self-publish, it appears others have done this in his stead posthumously. This is a far cry from submitting the manuscript to a book publisher or journal, which would usually lend some authoritative-ness to a work.

Most of the sources I have seen which discuss the song refer to it as "Springfield Mountain". This includes both Helen Hartness Flanders (New Green Mountain Songster, p. 159) and her colleague Phillips Barry's articles on the song (JSTOR link, p. 2). Tristram Coffin refers to it by both titles (Native American Balladry, pp. 35-6 uses "On") while other writings of his drop the prefix (Such as in this seminal article). Woody Guthrie's version of the song, a noteable rendition, drops the prefix as well (liner notes). I hope this evidence suffices, as I have included it in the article as well.

Since you are defending Meuse as an academic source, the burden of proof is on you. If you can find an additional source to substantiate Meuse's statement on Google, then add it to the article! The more sources for these hazy song histories, the better. I have been humming away trying to verify other components of the article, and collaberation seems a much more useful strategy than debating verifiability :) Let me know your thoughts! Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 14:14, 20-04-2013 UTC 14:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, you are full of yourself aren't you? You seem to think your personal claimed expertise allows you to act as judge, jury and executioner of reliable sources, and toss "burden of proof" on me to establish that the sourcs meet YOUR satisfaction???!!! Nobody gives a crap if you disagree with Phillips, or anyone else who has written about this, because we don't know who you are. I think I'm going to ignore this presumptuousness, but I will not allow you to trash this article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 14:42, 20-04-2013 UTC 14:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've begun to supplement the Meuse sources with other literature! I have limited access to music journals (mostly is New England based and what's available on JSTOR) so diversity among sources is a good thing. Thanks for your help! Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 15:15, 20-04-2013 UTC 15:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FSSNE article hunt!

Flanders, et al.'s volume (The New Green Mountain Songster) refers to three variants of the song as described in early 20th-century Folk Song Society of the Northeast (FSSNE) publication, undoubtedly primarily if not all articles by Phillips Barry, who is to be taken with a grian of salt given his known biases. However, they may be a good way to distinguish between lyrical variations in this song. The three variations are the Myrick type (which I imagine is the "Merrick family version" already in the article), the Curtis type (?), the Sally type (already mentioned in the article, no lyrics though), and the Molly type (which I just added lyrics for).

Anyway, the FSSNE archive is partly on Google, I'm going to try to dig around and see if I can find articles related to Springfield Mountain. Any assistance in this task would be greatly appreciated :) Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 05:07, 20-04-2013 UTC 05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are, but personally, I take faceless wikipedians with a "grain of salt" before I do published authors, per WP:VER. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating lyrics into article

I'm thinking it is a bit distracting and unconventional to include full lyrics to the song in the article, much less multiple sets. So I propose one or more of the following changes:

Since the lyrics are mostly from public domain reproductions, they can safely be moved to Wikisource and linked to in a relevant section of the article. We can even add additional versions, since several strains are not yet represented in the article.
Because the lyrics are an important component of narrative comprehension, verses representing substantial plot points should be kept or incorporated into the story synopsis section, or other sections where relevant. This has been done quite artfully over at Old Dan Tucker, a featured article.

Right now, I feel the lyrics clutter up the bottom of the article and detract from more important points.

Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 18:41, 20-04-2013 UTC 18:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different melodies

I've noticed in performances of these lyrics, some very different melodies are used. One of them even seems kinda similar to When Johnny Comes Marching Home (better known as "the ants go marching one by one, hurrah"): http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/folkden-wp/?p=6974 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELGVnPt_Pc

Anyone know what the deal is with there being so many different melodies? Esn (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Tampering

This article has undergone significant tampering and invention of sources. It is being heavily revised due to this tampering. Jellocube27 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]