Talk:Joe Hill (activist)

I removed the description of "Sweet Bye and Bye" as a "Salvation Army" hymn. Was it written originally for that orgainzation? I know it was popular in many more contexts in the early 20th century, to being played in churches, at funerals, and by brass bands. It's still in the "jazz funeral" repertory here in New Orleans, and is sometimes played as a dance number as well. (Alas I've not yet persuaded any band I play with to perform it with the Joe Hill lyrics...) -- Infrogmation 04:49, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Here's a chuckle. I like wikipedia and thought to mention it to my housemate. He had never seen it, so I told him the URL and he pulled up the main Wikipedia page. He said, "Hmm. Why did they put my name here?"

I responded, "hwa? What do you mean?" and went to look at his monitor. There, on the bottom of the last line at the last location of the "Selected Articles" (because it was an anniversary) was his name, clear as day. You've guessed the punch line: he's named Joe Hill.

---

I'm wondering about the text of the song listed here... If it was published in 1925, it's still copyrighted in the United States. Does anyone have more detail on the copyright status of the song? - Seth Ilys 14:42, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Google gives a number of dates for the song, from 1925 to 1940 or after. As far as I can tell, the poem was written by Hayes in '25, and the song in the 1930s by Earl Robinson. That's what this link says, at any rate [1]. Since the account apparently from a songwriter suggests that it was a more or less impromptu thing, I assume either that Hayes never copyrighted the poem (necessary for anything published before 1978) or that it circulated with his blessing. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's right... it momentarily slipped my mind: works published that early had to have a copyright notice attached. Given that additional detail, it sounds fine; I just wanted to clarify. Thanks... - Seth Ilys 16:52, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I added the lines to the song "sweet bye and bye" as without them the satyrical nature of the song is lost. --Edzillion 23:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

A question I've raised on the Alfred Hayes talk page too: Can it really be true that the poem I Dreamed I saw Joe Hill Last Night was written in 1925? According to Guerilla Minstrels (Hampton, Tennessee) it was written c. 1930. Also, in 1925 Hayes was only 14 years old. Any thoughts? -- Hestemand 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Don't mourn, organize!"

Were they his very last words? Or were they just the last words to his supporters? (or both?) I'm sure people who know the answer to this think the wording is clear but it isn't exactly.

---

I read that his last word was immediately before he was executed by a firing squad in Utah: "Fire!" This was from Wobblies! A Graphic History of the Industrial Workers of the World, from the "Joe Hill" chapter. - Danspalding 02:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Note: The first external link ("I.W.W. tribute page to Joe Hill") seems to be broken. (April 8, 2005)

---

It says that the police believed it to be a crime of revenge because nothing had been stolen and then below that it states that Hill denied being involved in the robbery and murder. Was there a robbery and was Hill put on trial for robbery as well as murder?

Labor Perspective section

Though there is a lot of interesting content in the Labor Perspective section, I'm afraid it may have to be removed. My reasoning follows:

1. Possible copyright violation - this material was apparantly copied from two sources (bio info from one source, lyrics from another). Though the section states that the content is reproduced at Wikipedia at the request of its author, there is no such evidence of such. If you look at the copyright policy, you'll see that in order to directly copy an author's work, the source must allow licensing under GFDL. However, since the links the section provides give a 404 error, there's no proof of such. Without proof that the author has given the content a GFDL license, this section is a copyright violation.
2. Sources shouldn't be directly copied anyway - according to the Wikipedia guideline WP:NPS, "copying other reference works is generally not appropriate." (note: the sources considered "appropriate" are public domain encylopedias). Though wikilinks have been added, and the format is cleaned up some, the content has still (supposedly) been copied directly from the source, and thus goes against WP:NPS. One might consider adding the source text to Wikisource and citing that, but it would probably be easier to just link to the original source. Plus, Wikipedia is not a mirror.
3. Much of the section violates the NPOV policy - statements such as "Plain and simple: Bill Spry and the State of Utah murdered Joe Hill" and "On November 19, 1915 the capitalists killed Joe Hill. Or so they thought. Joe lived much of his life like a vagabond poet and died like a rebel" are pretty cut-and-dry violations of WP:NPOV. Even when not making such obviously POV statements, however, the tone of much of the section is a more subtle violation of that policy.
4. Duplication of content - Much of the biographical information in that section already exists earlier in the article. More importantly, the entire section breaks the flow of the article. It stands on its own, instead of being incorporated with the other content.
5. Generally unencylclopedic - a great deal of the content is unencyclopedic, including "If a complete lack of direct evidence hadn’t deterred the authorities, why would an alibi corroborated by just one person?" and "The robber barons gouged and clawed their way to the top, and damn well intended to stay there by the same means." This is simply not an appropriate tone for an encyclopedia.

Based on the reasoning given above, I'm going to remove the section if I don't receive any satisfactory objections. If I can dig up the actual source for the section, I may incorporate some of the content into this article; the original contributor is of course welcome to do the same (citing the sources appropriately, of course). There's some good content that ought to be incorporated into the article, but this section is just inappropriate as-is. --JerryOrr 14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Hestemand 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. The entire Labor Perspective section seems like a romanticized epitaph written by a union-friendly misanthrope. Why all the song lyrics? Do other song-writer articles have song after song listed within? I wouldn't be surprised if this section was word-for-word plagerism from some yet-to-be determined work. 68.187.192.107 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we came to a consensus; the section has been removed. Again, if the source of that info can be found, it may be worthwhile to incoporate some of the content into the article (properly cited, of course); if someone wishes to do so, I would not be opposed to it. --JerryOrr 19:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The source of the material was a circa 2000 article in the Salt City Post, the official publication of the Central New York Area Local of the American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO. Pursuant to the rules of the Postal Press Association, the organization of APWU local newspapwer editors, material is never copyrighted and is expressly available for reprints and citations. I am absolutely certain that neither the publication nor the author ever intended or made any effort to copyright or in any way limit the use of this material since I was, at that time, the editor of that publication and am the author. Yes, the material unquestionably speaks from a biased point of view. Including the assertion of Christ's divinity in any article on Jesus is certainly perspectional, but how could any such article be complete in its absence. Why deny the Labor Movement a perspective voice in something that is specifically a part of its heritage? The inclusion of many of Joe Hill's songs is no more inappropriate than including reproductions of Starry Night and the various self-portraits in an article on Van Gogh. I do agree that the text would be more appropriate as a linked article, however it appears no where on the internet. I will try, at some point, to incorporate the more informational parts of the essay into the encyclopedic text of the Wiki article. It will, unfortunately, be without citations, since I garnered the material from various sources on the net when it was written and didn't bibliographize them. I do think the preoccupation with citations is largely misplaced. Britannica does largely without them. And some sights are gratuitous. Should a listing of the findings of the Council of Nicaea require a notation and link to the published minutes thereof, which I suspect to be no longer extant? Moreover, citing as a source any article which does not itself reference its sources is an exercise in futility, once removed.--User:Clarkpark (Howard Evans) 1:, 11 May 2006