Talk:We Shall Overcome

Untitled

An infobox was requested for the 1963 Joan Baez recording of "We Shall Overcome" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/14.

Added infobox as requested. Bonnie (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Guy Carawan attributed as author by Pete Seeger

I edited the page to give a bit more attribution to Guy Carowan. I base this on words I heard myself from Pete Seeger at a People's Music Network event in the 1980s, when he introduced Guy saying something like "...and he wrote a little song that became rather well known..." or something like that. I heard this from Pete's own mouth, though it was twenty years ago and my memory may be a bit distorted. If this is controversial, I can ask some of those still involved with PMN to cross-check what Pete's said.

Russell 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This song is popular elsewhere too!

It should probably be noted that this song has spread around so as to have significance outside of any civil rights movements, and even translated to other languages. There seems to be no other way how in India both this song (or probably some variant) and the Hindi version "Hum honge kaamyaab" could be taught to me in the Kindergarten (oh! old memories...) in 1985-86.

Proof: Google:"hum honge kaamyaab", Google:"we shall overcome one day" (the first match [1] as of now is about a Kerala finance minister singing the song)

BTW after all that (I was actually searching google for lyrics before I tried wikipedia) it is surprising to know that the song is not public domain. Is the Hindi variant, etc. illegal (I couldn't find the author of the Hindi variant, though)? Is singing the song (or variants) also illegal? Then should the verses be removed from the article? -- Paddu 25 Dec 2004

The article explains the copyright situation: Seeger took a "defensive" copyright, to prevent inappropriate commercialization of the song. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

The artists donate their half (1/6th each) of the royalties to the Highlander Research Center, but does the publisher donate its half? Just asking. 96.250.132.201 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)July 10, 2008

The song has also become famous in Czechoslovakia as a protest song against the communist regime (even before the Velvet Revolution), with the name "Jednou budem dál" and Czech text by Spirituál kvintet. - Mike Rosoft 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.143.30.175 (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Variants

There seem to be many variants of this song, e.g. [2], [3]. How is it verified that the version currently in the article is the original? -- Paddu 25 Dec 2004

Date

Someone has added this to Category:1903 songs. If you read the article, you will see that associating any particular year with the song is rather arbitrary. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lucy version

This was recently pasted into the article; I've moved it here. Why is this translation of encyclopedic notability in the English-language Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

hum honge kamiyaab
hum honge kamiyaab
hum honge kamiyaab ek din
o ho man mein hai vishwaas
poora hai vishwaas
hum honge kamiyaab ek din

o ho man mein hai vishwas
poora hai vishwaas
hum honge kamiyaab ek din

hogi shaanti charon oor
hogi shaanti charon oor
hogi shaanti charon oor ek din

o ho man mein hai vishwas
poora hai vishwaas
hum honge kamiyaab ek din

Joan Baez

"…the song was associated with Joan Baez…". Really? Particularly? I suspect this was only true of people who either particularly liked Joan Baez's singing style, or (conversely) particularly disliked both her and her politics. I don't think many people actively involved in the civil rights movement ever associated the song with Joan Baez. Is there some citable basis for this statement? -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 23:53 (UTC) I think she did lead the singing at the March on Washington. I changed the article to reflect that fact. At the time, it may have been associated with her. Bob Dylan and various others, including Harry Belafonte, were up there with her and Dr. King, but at the time she was the star and undeniably got a lot of mileage from the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.24.191 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright section - how much is actually sourced?

Few (not me) have this book by Seegar handy, but what does he actually claim? Outside of the copyright section the article seems to express the idea that the lyrics and music both date back for a much longer time. I think that aside from a one-sentence claim that Seegar's particular arrangement is copyrighted by him and goes to support the listed fund, the rest is probably just speculation, especially the stuff about the possible court case based on some other precedent (there's no policy that Wikipedia is NOT a circuit court of appeals but maybe we need one ;) ) Being unsure of the situation though, I'll leave it to a second opinion to actually delete it down. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and will remove the following final two sentences: "However, in a similar legal case involving the Kingston Trio or similar group in the case of "Tom Dooley---Hang your Head down Tom Dooley," the court ruled that they had infringed upon the ownership rights of a man from North Carolina. It is likely that a court would rule the same in the case of the Seeger case outside any arrangements that he has made." Wikipedia is not a court of speculation, and the cases seem quite distinct to me. "Hang down your head, Tom Dula" was sung by Frank Profitt of North Carolina, collected in 1938 by Frank Warner, who introduced it to Alan Lomax, who printed it in Folk Song USA in 1947 and subsequent editions. A legal settlement divided future royalties among the Kingston Trio, Profitt, Warner, and Lomax. This time period clearly fell within the scope of copyright law, apparently unlike "We Shall Overcome." Dwalls (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC) To clarify, I should add to the previous sentence "in the case of the 1901 composition of the Rev. Charles Tindley." Dwalls (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note, the "Tom Dooley" settlement divided the Artist's Rights amongst the Kingston Trio, Profitt, Warner, and Lomax (1/8 each); however, the publisher gets half the profits, so half the money, i.e., the Publishers' Rights, went to Howie Richmond's organization, TRO. There was probably plenty to divide, though 96.250.132.201 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)July 10, 2008. .

Why is this written in the "Origins" section: "Tindley's "I'll Overcome Someday" thus provides the structure for "We Shall Overcome", with both text and melody having undergone a process of alteration." WHO HAS THE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO ASSERT THIS CLAIM???? There is absolutely no evidence of this fact. In fact, Pete Seeger himself has stated in recorded interviews that "Nobody knows who wrote the original..." How is it that this so-called editor can make up things as if they were history? Why are there people here trying to perpetuate the same lie that has been told for 52 years?? I suspect there are "editors" here that work for Pete Seeger or TRO, the publishing company claiming illegal rights to the song. Shouldn't these facts have been verified by someone other than Seeger or authors that interviewed Seeger or other copyright claimants for their books? CHECK FOR YOURSELVES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.159.249 (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Lyrics

Can someone put the lyrics on Wikisource or something and link to it? -- Frap (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We shall overcome, We shall overcome, We shall overcome some day.

Chorus: Oh deep in my heart, I do belive, We shall overcome some day.

We'll walk hand in hand, We'll walk hand in hand, We'll walk hand in hand some day.

Chorus: We shall all be free, We shall all be free, We shall all be free some day.

We are not afraid, We are not afraid, We are not afraid today.

Chorus: We are not alone, We are not alone, We are not alone today.

Chorus: The whole wide world around, The whole wide world around, The whole wide world around some day.

Chorus: We shall overcome, We shall overcome, We shall overcome some day!

Regarding deleted sections and assertions of Gamboa book

I have restored the above sections of the talk page deleted by Isaias24 without archiving any of the material. This is inappropriate behavior. In addition, I find the assertions of the Gamboa book referred to below to be difficult to credit without further critical agreement that its central thesis is credible. Whether the material ought to be deleted until such verification is obtained, or whether the section should simply be cleaned up according to Wikipedia standards, ought to be debated on this page. Dwalls (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the entry dedicated to the discovery of We Shall Overcome's true author by Isaias Gamboa,i snot just a violation of the First Amendment, it speaks volumes to the very reason We Shall Overcome was misappropriated in the first place and has remained in the hands of Pete Seeger and others all these years. Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again. Perhaps there are those who would prefer to allow others to believe Seeger and his cohorts were incapable of such a thing. History will soon tell another story. I advise not removing the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.159.249 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Further to the above; from the looks of things this is an issue which has been going on for a while now. I have removed this section from the page and will post it here:

== True Author of We Shall Overcome REVEALED ==

n August of 2012, the book "We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue" (ISBN: 978-0615475288), was published. Written by author and 30-year music-industry veteran, Isaias Gamboa, the book proves in extraordinary detail that We Shall Overcome was actually derived from a popular copyrighted Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills"; written by a Cincinnati, Ohio woman named Louise Shropshire. The evidence in the book clearly demonstrates that Shropshire's song was in fact COPYRIGHTED in 1954, proving her song to be the original source of We Shall Overcome -not Charles Albert Tindley's "I'll Overcome" as has been proposed for over 52 years. The book also reveals that Louise Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey and features never-before-seen photographs of Shropshire with these historical figures. After thorough analysis, prominent musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts have unanimously affirmed these extraordinary discoveries. In addition to the striking musical similarities, Louise Shropshire's lyrics expose and bare witness to this fifty two year old historical innacuracy. Shropshire's lyrics: I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday". After numerous attempts, in August of 2012, Isaias Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger and in a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Seeger was shown the evidence of Shropshire's Music and Lyrics. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is Wonderful" adding that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history"

Badly formatted and written as it is, should some of this be included? I have no way of knowing whether Isaias24 is Gamboa himself, but whoever it is should discuss this on the talkpage. I have done a quick Google search and the book certainly exists, but I can see no sign of it having been reviewed in the mainstream press. Therefore we should be careful about this being WP:FRINGE. As it stands the section should not be on the page as frankly it is not written in the WP style, promotes the book by Gamboa and needs radical trimming. There may well be musical similarities, but I think it is a very thin argument to say that credit for the song should go to someone who used the word "overcome" repeatedly. Besides which, can't WSO be dated back to the early 1900s, in which case did the Shropshire song not originate from that too? We should be wary until this is a widely accepted starting point. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked the Talk Page history; why was the section by Isaias24 deleted? I can't see any reason why this section should not be on the TP. In addition, this user seems interested in helping to improve WP. Given the poor retention record of new editors, should we not at the very least welcome them, irrespective whether we like their ideas? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I share your feeling on the topic. Video link (through Gamboa) to a 2011 version of "If My Jesus Wills" — as presented here, it's definitely a version of the song under discussion. I guess the main point of interest (scandal if you will) would not be that Shropshire invented the song but that she copyrighted in 1954 and then was cut out of the deal when it became popular. Isaias24, welcome, whoever you are, and I hope we can work together on including your information in the encyclopedia. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the administrator of this site affiliated with either Pete Seeger of his publishing company TRO?? It sure seems like it. Does anyone care about this Charles Albert tindley story being proven a total lie? Has anyone here even heard Tindley's original copyrighted hymn?? I have. If you had done so, you would know that there is no way Seeger or his accomplices called upon it for inspiration. It is drastically different aside from some lyrics, which were common for the time and are arranged in a completely different format. What you don't know is that all of the assertions written here, come from the very people who have claimed copyright ownership of the song for all these years. Do your homework!! Whether anyone here knows it or not, Gamboa's book has blown the lid off a scandal the likes of which the music industry has never seen. It proves that Seeger and his cronies hijacked a song they knew belonged to someone else. In a month's time, this will be global news. Musicologists recognized worldwide have unanimously affirmed his findings and soon this We Shall Overcome page will be used as an example to show how legions of blind, Seeger loving folkies, helped him get away with this crime for over 50 years. Is anyone here concerned that Pete Seeger may have in fact plagiarized Louise Shropshire's song, If My Jesus Wills??? If not, you should be. There is already plenty of Black press covering Gamboa's book in Detroit, Atlanta, Dallas, Philly and L.A. But wait...isn't your reference to The so-called "mainstream press" a pseudonym for the White press?

What has been done here is shocking and wreaks with racial undertones. By flat out removing the entry for Isaias Gamboa's book, this page is trying to silence the truth; clearly demonstrating the biases, which facilitated these type of misappropriations for over a century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.159.249 (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying. For example, I agree that that there is an underlying bias on Wikipedia that equates 'mainstream' or reasonable press with the white press. The majority of Wikipedia editors are white males! The vast majority do not have bad intentions, but they have certain familiarities that dispose them to act in certain ways. I am quite sure that this page is not being patrolled by vicious Seeger fans. The real issue here has more to do with the process of editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a well-developed encyclopedic form, and is increasingly trying to adhere to standards for referencing the text that appears to outside sources. While I may agree that there is a bias towards white sources (as well as many other types of biases)—that's not why the section on the Gamboa book was removed! Using citations from any sources, black press included, would be a good way to create content that could be included on the page. Ultimately, if Gamboa's claims are correct, then the whole page would need to be changed, particularly the opening and the first section. But we can't change the whole page right away just because we have heard that a book is coming out on the topic! Change can be slow. But we can get it right. I invite anyone who is interested in adding some of the claims made in the Gamboa book to start gathering research, evidence, and sources here on the talk page, so that we can construct Wikipedia text that everyone will accept. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

With reference to the above, there is certainly a press release around see here, but I still can't find any news about this, beyond Amazon and Barnes and Nobles's web-sites. The IP editor may be correct in saying that there is press interest. Unfortunately I can't find it. However, I am based in the UK so can't get Detroit newspapers. I am certainly not a "Seeger lover", but as Groupuscule has said we need more sources than what we have before there can be a massive over-haul of this page. By all means lets add a reference to the book (as long as we are not giving undue prominence to a "fringe" theory). The some of the opening pages are available to read on Amazon (WP has blocked the page so I can't link to it), so we can certainly explain in brief Gamboa's claim. This may have to do until there is further support. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this short video clip; a small part of a feature documentary currently in production. You will see Seeger in the end, being confronted by Louise Shropshire's grandson with evidence. Seeing is believing...or is it?: Think...why do you all believe Seeger's story?? Because he said so??? Outside of the people who copyrighted the song, no independent sources exist to prove Seeger's colorful myth. Think for yourselves. As unthinkable as this act was, it actually happened. The song that the Library of Congress has called "The Most Powerful Sng of the 20th Century" was plagiarized from a black woman, who filed two copyrights for her sacred hymn in 1945 and was an influential friend of Re Martin Luther King, Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev. Thomas A. Dorsey (The father of Gospel Music)...150 photo's...all proven in the the book. I am looking forward to seeing this site change to reflect the truth...ugly as it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.159.249 (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC) ADDITIONAL PRESS FOR GAMBOA BOOK / This is not going away...page needs major overhaul.

A thick red line

“Sheffield then commissioned a musicological report and involved the NAACP in the effort to seek truth, justice and recognition for Louise Shropshire's role in the history and creation of "We Shall Overcome".[13]”

That is not an appropriate style for an encyclopedia article. It’s fine, however, for an op-ed.

There’s a communist back story to this song that is missing: Monteagle, Seeger, et al., were Reds, which is not a secret, outside of Wikipedia. I wonder how many times this information has been censored.24.90.190.96 (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added a tag to that statement as it doesn't appear to be in the cited source. If a better source cannot be found, I suggest the paragraph be deleted. But your opinions as to a "communist back story" or to censorship are even less relevant, unless you can back them up from reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Louise Shropshire authorship

It's great that Cincinnati has recognised Shropshire's creation of the song, and this should certainly be added to the page. The page is a bit of a mess really, and it doesn't need a long quote from the Council's minutes. I applaud the editors who have been trying to find this information, but it needs organising in a proper fashion.

What it does need is a proper addressing of the authorship, quite separate from the fact that it became used in the Civil Rights movement and became associated with the artists that it did. The page itself is contradictory. I'd be tempted to put the authorship stuff later on, and start with the Civil Rights movement to explain it's significance.

Are there more sources around which support the Gamboa book? Although the action by Cincinnati is certainly notable, I don't think it can be used as a "source" as such.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A microcosm of all that's wrong with Wiki

The page has been hijacked by one Isaias Gamboa, a "licensed Christian minister" on a self-promotion crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.251.87.204 (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I revamped much of the page. Given that a reliable source has discussed Gamboa's claims, they do get a small mention because he's involved in the lawsuit, but I reverted the remainder back to a more neutral version. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work! It's certainly worth a mention but had totally distorted the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.35.82 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)