Talk:Paul Gilley

Not credible
Hank Williams has been credited as the writer of these songs for 70 years. Now a source comes forward long after claiming they wrote those songs long after all who could dispute it are dead. I find it very convenient how the man is dead and his mother burned all evidence. This is not credible and does not belong on Wikipedia. Rockojr2488 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Those additions should be challenged. This is re-writing history. Hank has been credited as the sole writers for 70 years! You allow some unreliable source to come forward and change that? Mind you the source admits all evidence is BURNED ! And all who could challenge it are dead. This is disgraceful Rockojr2488 (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop making new sections for every new comment. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am reverting all of your removals because of your violation of the hard policy WP:Neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that in early 2022, American Songwriter discussed the authorship claim by Gilley. See "Behind The Song Lyrics: 'I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry,' Hank Williams". The claim is not fringe. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All that article does is rehearse what Flippo wrote (which is the probable source for Nickell's claim). Chet Flippo was a helluva writer, but that doesn't mean what he wrote in this case was true. I have been hunting for where his papers are deposited; his notes would probably be there. And Nickell makes so many errors in just what he says on the video, it's laughable. Until the claim is accepted as the scholarly concensus, it is a fringe theory, and covering it must comply with WP:FRINGE. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Date on ref
I have notifed the Morehead State administrators of the dating error of The Inkspot. Since my edit was reverted, I will wait until it is changed on the university website before re-editing. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no dating error. Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem very confident without looking at any of the evidence. The issue is undated, but it is identified twice as being Vol. 2, No. 4, while the clearly-dated issue March 1951 is identified as Vol. 2, No. 3. One of the contributors bios in the back also refers to the March 1951 issue, and the list of contributors that are duplicated in both issues identify them as freshmen and sophomores. The editorial layout of the two are identical also, and different from the 1949 and 1950 issues (for example there are no contributors bios in the earlier volumes). Tom Reedy (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The magazine was not published regularly. Looking at the Morehead website archives of the Inkpot, it's clear that the publication date is "Summer 1949". I must conclude that the reason you chose to replace 1949 with 1951 was to render Gilley a fraud. There's no evidence at all to support your selection of 1951.
 * Gilley entered Morehead State College in 1949. The cited publication Inkpot identifies him as a freshman. That aligns with the listed date. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the information that Gilley entered MSC in 1949? He supposedly graduated from Hazel Green Academy in 1949; how would he have been able to appear in the summer 1949 issue of a college journal? Look at the next page and read the bio for David W. Polley. Then go [here https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/msu_inkpot_magazine/] and look at Polley's contribution and his bio in the back. It is obvious that the Summer 1949 issue is misdated and out of order. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * David W. Polly was reported to have graduated from West Point in June 1955 at the age of 22.
 * I see that the March 1951 Inkpot Contest issue contains the piece "Monarch of the Night" by David Wayne Polly. I concede that the Summer 1949 Inkpot reports that Polly won honorable mention for this same piece in the Inkpot contest. If the one issue follows the other, then the "Summer 1949" issue would have been printed in 1951, which appears to be the basis for your case. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/trail_blazer/437/ Download and weep. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, the Paul Gilley who got an honorable mention in the May 1944 edition of The Kentucky High School Athlete doesn't appear to be the same one. That person was from Benham KY, 200 miles south of where Gilley attended high school. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is his first mention in the University newspaper: https://scholarworks.moreheadstate.edu/trail_blazer/448/ Tom Reedy (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

This guy pretty much came to the same conclusion as I have: https://tennesseewalt.com/2020/09/14/the-curious-case-of-paul-gilley/ Tom Reedy (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The article reflects your very reasonable caution in crediting the claims about Gilley. The books cited for his claims are at least questionable. Nickell's self-published book isn't a reliable source (WP:RSSELF) but it's the primary basis for attributing a number of songs to Gilley.  Gilley's claim isn't preposterous, but statements in Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources, and Gilley's claims clearly all trace to Gilley alone.  Any claim based on either of these books should be deleted for lack of sufficient reliable sources. Bomagosh (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources discussing Gilley's claim to have written Hank Williams songs
Here are published works that show that Gilley's claim to song authorship has been discussed in reliable sources. These sources supply a reason to mention Gilley's claim in various relevant articles, especially the song articles themselves. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1981: . This book started the ball rolling. Gilley is shown to have sold Williams two songs. The book has been praised for its scholarship and dismissed for its colorful narrative style, especially the fictional conversations depicted between the characters.
 * . The author reviews and compares two Hank Williams biographies—Flippo's and the one by Roger Williams—both published in 1981. The reviewer notes the Paul Gilley authorship claim.


 * 1983: . The author writes, "Flippo has done what may be called the most extensive research into Hank's life. He has... investigated the relationship between Hank and Paul Gilley 'who sold Hank some of his best-loved songs'..."
 * 1993: . The author says Williams "bought the lyrics to 'Cold, Cold Heart' from Paul Gilley."
 * 2001: . The book talks about Flippo's 1981 biography, noting that Flippo was the first to write about the Gilley authorship of two Williams songs. The author discusses how Williams used a number of other songwriters, especially Fred Rose and Vic McAlpin, to write his songs, and that Gilley probably wrote early versions of two Williams songs.
 * 2012: W. Lynn Nickell. Paul Gilley: The Ghost Writer in the Sky. This self-published book sparked a renewed media interest in the Gilley authorship claim.


 * 2013: . The episode includes a segment about Gilley's authorship claims.


 * 2014: . The editors describe how Flippo performed thorough research for his 1981 book, writing "In the process, Flippo uncovered a wealth of previously unused sources, some of which contained startling information... accounts that suggested Pauly Gilley, a Kentucky college basketball player, had written early versions of several of Williams' best-loved songs..."
 * 2020: . The book mentions that Gilley sold songs to Williams.
 * 2022: The author writes, "Williams's song, 'I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry' (1949), a song credited to both Williams and Paul Gilley..."
 * You appear to have a basic misunderstanding of sourcing. Citing articles that merely quote what your two sources say does not lend any weight or credibility to your argument. One hundred mentions of Flippo does not equal 100 times the credibility. And you do know that Friedman's book is fiction, right? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You shot yourself in the foot here by nominating the article for deletion, completely failing to perform the required due diligence. Your effort to remove Gilley entirely from the narrative is noted.
 * You must be correct that I cannnot wrap my head around sourcing, having shepherded three complete Featured Articles the whole way from article creation to FA status, along with taking 40+ articles to GA status, all with perfectly adequate sourcing. But sourcing is beyond me, according to you.
 * Sourcing works in different ways for different purposes. Fictional books that mention a disputed claim can be brought forward to show that the disputed claim has been represented in pop culture. Sources that discuss a previous source are useful in that they confirm or refute the previous source. Such later sources stand on their own as new sources, showing that a new author has agreed or disagreed. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting the article deleted wasn't my intention; an AfD is a quick way of gathering comments and ideas. My intention is to bring the article up to WP policy standards. It'll take a while, but by the time it's all over it will be. Tom Reedy (talk) 06:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * > Sources that discuss a previous source are useful in that they confirm or refute the previous source. Such later sources stand on their own as new sources, showing that a new author has agreed or disagreed.
 * Sorry, but that's not even close to Wikipedia's policy. It's an example of circular reporting. Wikipedia requires independent sources.
 * We will have a chance to discuss and clarify all this in the future. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Flippo book review, Koon 1983, and Koon 2001 are all the same. In addition, according to Reliable_sources, neither they nor Huber, et al 2014, or Neal 2022 can be used as souces, since they all provide the information about Gilley's putative authorship only ''in passing ... that is not related to the principal topics of the publication.'' Nor do I understand why you included Nickell 2012, since he is not used in this article as a source. You say his book "sparked a renewed media interest in the Gilley authorship claim," yet the only media that appears to have been interested was extremely local--no New York Times, no nationwide TV coverage--just local outlets looking to fill space. Hardly "a renewed (was there one before?) media interest." In addition, your Appalachian Attitude and Licking Valley Courier refs are ref is dead and have been taken down from the internet. I corrected your Journal of Roots Music address in the article so it now works. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)