Talk:The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Live

I think the live section is slightly odd. It implies dylan still plays the song although it is topical and lists bootleg 5 (Release 2000or so) but RECORDED in 1975 and bootleg 6 (Released 2004 or so) but RECORDED in 1964 as examples.

[edit] True Story?

"This is a true story(ha, ha, ha) no really, taken straight from the newspapers, (ha, ha) nothing has been changed but the words,(ha,ha)." Bob Dylan, Manchester Free Trade Hall, England, 1965.Lion King 00:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your remark. Are you doubting the veracity of the story, or just objecting to Dylan chuckling? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I was a green news reporter in Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland in 1963 and assigned to the story of William A. Zanzinger appearing in court for the first time. No out of town reporters had arrived, and I just reported that Mr. Zanzinger appeared in court to plead not guilty. Then a media frenzy developed, and I always wondered why the trial was moved from Baltimore to the small town of Hagerstown. The experienced reporters took over and I didn't get to cover the trial. I read it in the papers, the Hagerstown Harold-Mail, like everyone else, and at the time the story was about the rich guy from a well-off family, with minor attention to the victim. Times have changed, but Bob Dylan sang about that too. James Spears --Jameshagerstown 00:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'ts not my remark, it's Dylan's. I'd be very interested to know what you make of it. Lion King 21:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't particularly make anything of it, partly because the tone of laughter is not something easily conveyed on the written page. But, in any event, what I make of it would not be encyclopedic. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophizing Disgrace?

Wikipedia entry: "Dylan's song strongly implies that his upper-class status contributed to the relatively low length of the sentence. However, after the sentence was announced, the New York Herald Tribune conjectured that Zantzinger was not given a longer sentence to keep him out of the state prison, since the notoriety of his crime would make him a marked target among its largely African American inmates (Zantzinger instead served his time in the comparative safety of the Washington county jail)."

Don't these couple of sentences just excuse the light sentence he was given? Is it the courts place to protect rich whites from poor blacks inside prison? OR should they protect poor blacks from rich whites outside prison? According to this description of the case, which I know little about, the judge made his decision that rich whites are more important than poor blacks. The quote above agrees with that judgement. This kind of justification of atrocities seems to be what Dylan is talking about when he says, "You who philosophize disgrace ...". It's ironic. One who philosophizes disgrace should not be writing this entry. It goes against the spirit invoked by the song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.215.225 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2006.

Looks to me like the burden of the wording problem is entirely on the word "however", which suggests contrast where there is none. I will remove that word. - Jmabel | Talk 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosody?

My dictionary says it means "the patterns of rhythm and sound used in poetry, he theory or study of these patterns, or the rules governing them, the patterns of stress and intonation in a language". But this is a pretty obscure word (I'm a native English speaker with a reasonably large vocabulary and I had to look it up), and doesn't seem accurate. Is there a better word? Natalie 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the correct technical term, though I agree it is a bit obscure. I can't think of another, though. And, yes, judging by your writing, the fact that you don't know the word counts for something. - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case about trust fund

I notice that this reasonably interesting link involving the court decision of a tax case about Zantzinger was removed from the article on the basis that it is not relevant to the song. I agree that it is not directly relevant, but only because of the song is Zantzinger anything like a public figure; I don't think he merits his own article separately from the one about the song; but I think that the case merits linking since I could easily imagine someone doing scholarly research on him turning to this article and finding that link useful.

Anyway, I've said my piece: I won't unilaterally restore it, but I am supportive of anyone else's decision to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I'm an attorney licensed in Maryland and waded through the case with interest (no pun intended). In short, in October of 1983 the IRS put liens on his income from his mother's trust, and the case was decided against him in 1986 (in the name of Riggs Bank, which argued that the IRS liens should fail and Riggs should be allowed to give him trust assets, even if not part of the income stream, at their own discretion). I'm putting it back in the article as part of his tax & income troubles which led to his 1986 county tax liabilities that caused his forfeiture of the properties at the base of the 1991 scandal. The 1991 scandal is relevant to the article two ways:
1. the song added to the furor around his 1991 conduct; and
2. even if it had not, his biography post-song is relevant to the article as he is a named character in the song
I also agree he doesn't merit his own article, and that any relevant info about him goes in this one. -- LisaSmall T/C 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Facts?

Wikipedia: At about 1:30 in the morning of the 9th, he ordered a drink from barmaid Carroll and when she didn't bring it immediately, he cursed at her to which Carroll replied: "I'm hurrying as fast as I can." Zantzinger said: "I don't have to take that kind of shit off a nigger," and struck her on the shoulder with the cane. Carroll was heard to remark "I feel deathly ill, that man has upset me so" soon after, before collapsing and being taken to the hospital.

Is this conversation really accurate? Is there any proof that those were the words exchanged? It's worded as if it's a fact, but I have not come across anything to back this up. - RapMasterK 23:01, 04 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

[Re]

William Devereux "Billy" Zantzinger (whom the song calls "William Zanzinger")

Where does the spelling "Zanzinger" come from? Dylan could easily be saying "Zantzinger". If it comes from an album lyric sheet, that should be noted, but also keep in mind that lyric sheets were often written after the fact by someone other than the composer (as odd as that seems) and often contain mistakes. If Dylan changed it for legal reasons, that should be noted. Otherwise it looks like a Wikipedia typo. --Tysto 19:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC) format fixed, &, in bold, muddy authorship & intent clarified, by Jerzy•t 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides the official Dylan site, listen to the recording instead of saying "the T is obviously inaudible". I probably haven't heard it for at least 40 years, but i was shocked to realize the name is not "Williamson Zenger". In English, "anz" is pronounced phonetically, but "antz" is pronounced "ants", bcz following the unvoiced T with a voiced Z is an acrobatic maneuver that should be left to professionals and not attempted at home. If he intended to pronounce "Zantzinger", you'd hear the difference.
--Jerzy•t 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Tysto, Dylan had no need to change the spelling for "legal reasons" and (even if he thought he had) merely dropping one letter would not have protected him from a libel action. This passage might be the explanation:

Dylan misspells the perpetrator's name, omitting the t -- perhaps deliberately, out of contempt, or perhaps to emphasize the Snidely Whiplash hissing of the zs.

– Ian Frazier, "Legacy of a Lonesome Death", Mother Jones November/ December 2004

Since it is speculation in a published source, we could get cite it (as speculation) in the main article space if you feel a need to go into the TZ v. Z difference. The Wiki article already uses the Frazier MJ piece as a source, with a hyperlink, if you want to see the original. -- LisaSmall T/C 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The incident" secn: chgs & citn tags, 1

(Refactoring note: this heading and the three which follow it were originally all a single posting by Jerzy December 18. The final section, numbered "5", was my initial response to the original single long post. Broke into segments to facilitate responses; duplicated his sig line with time and date for each of first the four sections. -- LisaSmall T/C 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) )

I'm going thru the diffs from my just-completed edit intending to capture my intention re at least the most significant of the many changes, while they are fresh in my mind. In some cases, i'll be clarifying the kind of citations i see as needed.

My 'graph 1 (Part of former 'graph 1):

  1. USA will be understood from "Maryland" by most readers, and the rest have a clear course of action, and the rest will learn it from the 1st sent of the lk'd Baltimore article.
  2. "Dylan's song accurately implies, but never states, that Carroll was black and Zantzinger is white." Doesn't imply (tho his focus on social status insinuates). In any case, moved to new 'graph 4, where it finally becomes relevant. But it's not clear whether people guessed it from their knowledge of 1960s Balt. social conditions, or from the specifics of the coverage at the time, or bcz activists made it explicit, so Dylan's insinuation is not relevant.
  3. Never "states that Zantzinger beat Carroll to death with his cane"!
  4. Contrast between "cane" and "toy cane" unjustified, in absence of info on how the toy differs from the real thing. (BTW, why does a grown man carry a toy cane??? Costume party?)
  5. "assaulted Carroll ... two others ... attacked": I grouped the three together, considered "assault and battery", and after reading the articles those lks target, realized (for the record) that this was an assault without battery. Read them, now and in a month. (the distinctions are tricky to remember.)
  6. "at least three of the hotel servants": moved to preserve chronological order.
  7. quotes from lyrics: i guess this was my attempt to deal with the most questionable of Dylan's presentation of the facts within chronology. (Alternatively, this could be moved to, say, an "Accuracy dispute" section that would include the Zantzinger interview material, but that's part of an even bigger job.) Note that he doesn't say whether the cane was thrown (i.e., left its owner's hand), nor do we know independently whether it was, tho it's an odd way to use a cane against a specific individual on one hand, and deceptive language supporting "destroy all the gentle" (my emphasis) to the contrary of the evidence in the article of his picking on specific servants (whom he presumably had contact with, and who presumably saw no reason to go to their boss saying "Massa Emerson, I'm worried the young Massa Zantzinger is going to injure one of the guests -- he keeps flailing about with his cane, and he's already hit a couple of us colored help without really trying to").
  8. "Zantzinger had been so drunk that he had no memory of the incident." Well,
    1. How do we know he was drunk enough to ensure memory failure? If his blood or breath was measured, give a number; otherwise you're talking about his drunk-like behavior.
    2. His lack of any specific memory was unverifiable with technology of the time, and he might perceive a self-interest in lying about that unfalsifiable statement rather than being cross examined about what he remembered: an effect lie about you did requires careful planning; a lie about remembering requires only "I told you i don't remember anything." But surely the former clause was based on his denial of memory, which i stated based on that inference.
    3. Attribution of the memory loss to drunkenness could be justified only by a blood-alc number and citation of experimental evidence (or very thorough clinical studies) that show a high probability of memory loss for his concentration.
  9. (My phrase) "poetic license, as to the degree of malice evidenced." Clearly he was a bad drunk, and specific servants were targets, but the song's "destroy all the gentle" is hyperbole: balls (in Bal'm'er as of the '60s) have women, and surely there were among them some DSFWs along with the KKK's Ilse Koch-equivalents, who remained unmolested, since there is nothing there about him being caned within an inch of his life by the time the arrest took place.
  10. "heard to remark": "I feel deathly ill" is not a "remark" in standard English, nor likely to be in '60s Black English: it's an excited, if not spontaneous, expression of severe distress, and she may or not have realized it was no metaphor.
  11. "heard to [say] to her co-workers": That is implausible unless it means "heard by white co-workers to say to her black co-workers." If that is verifiable, it had fucking better clearly say that. And it probably also should be made clear who thinks it matters: did the DA make a point of calling white witnesses to verify that she, and not others after the fact, accused the white attacker before she was in extremis? I'd have to think about whether anything short of that would justify the difference between my clarification here, of what was there, and what i replaced it with.
  12. Hmm, assault took place in AM, so "next morning" is ambiguous. Probably means "after daylight the same day, but i'm tagging that (in another edit) as needing a source bcz it can't be cleared up without one.

--Jerzy•t 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy, you say as Point 4 above, Contrast between "cane" and "toy cane" unjustified, in absence of info on how the toy differs from the real thing. (BTW, why does a grown man carry a toy cane??? Costume party?) Toy, or decorative, canes are generally made of wood or bamboo and are not meant to bear a person's full weight the way an orthopedic cane does. This was a white-tie event, meaning men wore white tie and tails, which some men, particularly in the 1920's (long before Carroll's murder) accessorized with canes which were purely decorative, in the style of Fred Astaire. A real cane is a much heavier piece of equipment than a toy, or decorative, cane. A very early report of Zantziger's attack on Carroll by Roy H. Wood says he "rained blows" on her with the cane, until it "was broken in three pieces." A toy cane would break much more easily than an orthopedic cane. It would also leave fewer, lighter marks and inflict less damage.
In Point 8.2 above, you say you recast something based on what you had inferred. We are not permitted to infer or speculate, see WP:NOR. However, as numerous published sources state he used "too drunk to remember" as an explanation, it stands.
In Point 11 above, you use language which reflects your passion for the subject but is against Wiki policy. Aside from adults who take offense, many students under 18 use as a preliminary resource. I did not censor you, but I hope you will go back and censor yourself. -- LisaSmall T/C 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The incident" secn: chgs & citn tags, 2

My 'graph 2 (Part of former 'graph 1, plus 1st sent of former 'graph 2):

  1. "rather than the physical assault itself": I replaced that "with rather than blunt-force trauma from the blow (which left no lasting mark)". The assault was "physical" -- not just in the picky sense of the threat being communicated by something other than magical influence, but also in the fact that he touched her -- but the point here is what mediated the harm: my impression is that, as with the aspect i noted above re battery, is "the likel[ihood of] caus[ing] bodily harm" via the assault. In fact, the inclusion of a touch in his assault may well have been a major factor in making the assault psychologically traumatic enough to have effected the death in her particular case. But even if that were provable, the unlikelihood of the touch having that impact (as far as he knew) would mean that he was not a person who "knew or should have known" how deadly his act would be. I'm suggesting that despite the touch, his act was less legally culpable than shouting "Boo!" behind someone that you know is recovering from a heart attack, and that you might be prosecuted for a "reckless indifference" murder), if that invalid arrested in the next minute and eventually died.
  2. BTW, re the immediately preceding, perhaps i should have written "virtual certainty ... no lasting mark, and the unlikelihood of his being able to anticipate it.)" But IANAL, and IMO someone closer to being one should intervene if we're going to slice the distinctions any thinner.)
  3. IANAD either, but my impression is that while pathologists consider the states of various organs to be facts that they establish, "cause of death" conclusions are, in varying degrees depending on the case, deductions from the organic findings, about the relative probabilities of different possible causes. I reworded to reflect that distinction, but didn't quibble about the fact that the existence of the hemorrhage was presumably a definite finding. (The distinction? Conditions not detected could have caused death, with the hemorrhage occurring so soon after as to be indistinguishable from an death-causing hemorrhage, whence the expression (listening, fellow CSI fans?) "perimortem".)
  4. "(the cane left no mark on her)": Verifiable only if someone opened her clothing immediately after the assault, and probably also continued to observe for some further period. I did a little experiment, with my forearm and a 24-inch flexible steel ruler. (It didn't hurt enough to avoid my ignoring the brief sting (which i infer from trying something similar, later, on the other arm), in my preoccupation with the visible effects.) There was a dim, ruler-width, straight-sided depression for about 30 seconds, and a roughly circular reddening, after a couple minutes but fading within 15. IMO a non-lasting mark almost certainly cannot be ruled out, and the old version mis-stated one of the autopsy findings: any blow (like the one apparently described by witnesses) "left no lasting mark", as i worded it.

--Jerzy•t 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy, the article now reads, without any citation, His charge was reduced to manslaughter and assault, based on the likelihood that it was her stress reaction to his verbal and physical abuse led to the intracranial bleeding, rather than blunt-force trauma from the blow that left no lasting mark. Are you saying above that you speculated on why his charges were reduced, speculated on why she died, speculated on the legal standard for manslaughter versus murder, and performed original research as to whether the cane left marks or not? Or are these lines based on a verifiable source? I haven't seen anything about the reason for his charges being reduced except for some cynical aside that he was a white guy catching a break from a white system. Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I don't understand whether you cast these sentences this way based on WP:RS or on your own conclusions. I also don't understand your acronyms "IANAD" and "IANAL." Help! -- LisaSmall T/C 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The incident" secn: chgs & citn tags, 3

My 'graph 3 (Rest of former 'graph 2):

  1. "strongly implies that": That's like being very unique. You either imply or you don't, and in this case he didn't, tho he invited listeners to infer. I said "The song juxtaposes" the presumed cause and effect.
  2. "the notoriety of his crime would" is ambiguous between being a fact or part of the Trib's conjecture. I avoided ambiguity with "on the logic that his notoriety would"; perhaps we could say more if we had the citation (whose absence i did not tag).
  3. "marked target" is a hyperbolic metaphor; i made it "a target for abuse", more clearly keeping "target" metaphorical by specifying the kind of target, rather than inviting open more specific, and less specifically metaphorical, completions like "for death" and "for assassination".
  4. "among its largely black inmates" suggests their race is more directly to the point than in my "the largely black state prison," tho i'm not certain i've really reduced the implicit connection between (all) the black inmates there and the people making him a target. Am i just associating race with the institution instead of its inmates, but logically making the same suggestions? Or by focusing on race and the institution, have i evoked the atmosphere there being shaped by race, without making individuals'(every individual's) race the focus of what that atmosphere is likely to call forth from some individuals?
  5. I indicated the distance to the jail in question, but i did not mention that Wash Co. looks to be the last county before the range that demarcated anti-Confederate West Virgina the rest of the former territory of Virgina -- i.e., westernmost county but for two, and really out in the sticks. But i failed to solicit info on the location of the trial and sentence: Did he get a change of venue (to Hagerstown, according to an edit summary in the history -- which the Wash. Co. seat)? Did that imply imprisonment in either state pen or that county's jail? Is he from Wash Co.? Or nearby?
  6. "also paid": I inserted before that "Independently[citation needed] of his sentence," having noted the recent removal of "of his own volition," which i also object to, believing it is too vague and too suggestive of (inherantly unverifiably) beneficent intention. While it calls for a citation, we could however know whether it was a part of his sentence (and i assume that the editor meant it wasn't), and whether it was made known to the judge in open court before sentencing. (If it was done after, that's worth also making explicit.)
  7. "to the Carroll family the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars." Besides a minor change of order of the phrases, i fact-tagged "to Carroll's family", which i doubt is accurate: other likelier possibilities are "to her estate" and "divided among the individual members of her family". It also is incomplete w/o indicating whether the payment was in consideration of anything (agreement not to sue, statement of intention not to sue) or was made with a statement of purpose, perhaps with the effect that a court could weigh whether acceptance of the payment (or cashing the check) demonstrated any suit-relevant state of mind in the recipient(s). (BTW, i think it's true in every state that a check is simply an unconditional order to deliver funds, even if the account holder tries to use endorsement of the check as evidence of acceptance of conditions written on the check, like "in full payment". But i'm not sure that rules out getting admitted as evidence a check that might sway a jury's thinking.)

--Jerzy•t 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In Jerzy's Point 7 above, I am interested in this payment too and am looking through some of the general references to find out where the Wiki editor who put it in got it. "To Carroll's family" v. "to her estate" v. "divided among..." makes no substantive difference in the context of this encyclopedia article. I updated the fact tag to January to indicate someone's actively working on resolving this fact issue. -- LisaSmall T/C 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The incident" secn: chgs & citn tags, 4

My 'graph 4 (former 'graph 3)

  1. How about that, no significant change.

My 'graph 5 (former 'graph 5)

  1. I switched the last two paragraphs: see my 6th, below.
  2. "that not only did he rent out properties which he no longer owned, but even won": Defective syntax; reworded with, i think fewer double negatives: "that he also he rented out properties which he no longer owned, and had even won.
  3. "families who rented": They're called "tenants", unless you're trying to win sympathy for the suffering kids, which is PoV unless the encyclopedicity of the cases beyond the use of the song is established.
  4. "were black, coupled with Zantzinger's past": replaced with "were black, and the white Zantzinger's crime against the black Carroll", this being where her race becomes relevant.
  5. "led to charges of racism": We don't know what caused the charges to be made, but these facts "were cited in characterizing him as racist." ("Charge" is a bad word to apply to a personal characteristic of a convicted of a charge of manslaughter.

My 'graph 6 (former 'graph 4):

  1. Re switch of order: putting Z's belated defense in its chronological order. Unless a separate "controversy" section should be created, his defense is too diffident to appear just after writing of the song: it's not about setting straight the record created earlier, but rather about him finally making public his grousing about the faits accompli that he had sat still for for 35 years.
  2. "is vitriolic in his scorn": "vitriolic" is PoV and ambiguous (vitriol means, IIRC, "hydrochloric acid"). I put "expressed scorn".
  3. "claiming that the song is inaccurate": insignificant, especially since misspelling his name is an uncontested inaccuracy. Also redundant to whatever was paraprased(?) as "total lie".
  4. "a total lie": This is attributed to him in an indirect quote; if it's his wording, put it in quotes, bcz it must at least be hyperbole: the song says he was got a 6-month sentence for Carroll's death, and there is no sign that he is contesting at least the that, and the song is at worst a partial lie.
  5. "never attempted". Give us a citation, that will let us reword with something verifiable. It could never be shown that he never attempted to get his lawyer to take a shot, bcz you can't prove his lawyer isn't lying to protect the confidentiality of their discussion of why it would be hopeless.

--Jerzy•t 11:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The incident" secn: chgs & citn tags, 5

I think many of your questions above have been answered by the citations provided in the series of edits I've done over the past couple of hours, relying heavily on two 1963 articles from TIME Magazine, which satisfy WP:RS and do not fall afoul of WP:OR. I left in the "cite needed" statement about his alleged payment of $25K to Carroll's family, but I have not found anything to confirm it, or to clarify whether it was voluntary or done to settle a civil suit. It was not part of the criminal fine. I have also changed heading from "The incident," which inadvertently insults the dead woman, to "The murder," which could be changed to "The killing" if murder seems too strong in light of his final conviction. -- LisaSmall T/C 08:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice research; i think those additions are important.
_ _ Even before seeing the above, i went to "The homocide"; if "The incident" was mine, i offer the excuse of first things first (and some inevitable quirkiness in setting those priorities) and Linus's Law's protection of the results. "The incident" is indeed inadequate, and while WP needn't avoid insults delivered inadvertently via the most accurate wording available (or the most accurate one that is reasonably terse since in the case of a section heading, additional precision in the lead sentence can correct for ambiguity), avoiding the appearance of joining the pussyfooting of the officials is well worth while. (I think it was after i added or tolerated that wording that the (IIRC) black cop, on K-Ville explained the term "NHI" killing to a reporter as "No Humans Involved" (the writers probably going for shock value by not substituting or including "No Homicide Involved"). Of course you can figure out that the black victim actually quickly turned out to be a solid citizen -- in fact a cooperating witness to a gang murder.)
_ _ A slightly different issue is that the single criminal act is the focus but not the subject of the section; something like "Circumstances of the crimes" might be a further improvement.

--Jerzy•t 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerzy, thanks for the kind words. I admire your enthusiasm for the article but think it bubbles over into discussion of issues (like your comments re CSI, NHI, and K-ville) that aren't appropriate for an article talk page. The tangents make your comments specific to the article hard to follow sometimes. Re the section heading, "Homicide" doesn't work for me, as to most non-lawyer readers, it sounds like a legal charge other other than murder (the initial charge) or manslaughter (the final conviction). "The death" would be too passive, since he was held criminally responsible for causing it; I'll go with "The killing" if you find "The murder" too strong (manslaughter being a lesser degree of murder, I like "The murder" best but gather you feel it's too strong, since it was only the initial charge). -- LisaSmall T/C 04:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hattie Carroll accuracy

I removed from the "The Homicide" secn

In addition to her work at the hotel, Hattie Carroll, at 51, was the mother of eleven children and president of a black social club.[1]

bcz it is irrelevant morally and legally, and its sentimental impact is (so far) off topic. Presumably it would be relevant if we showed any seriousness about covering the national interest in the case, and it is also important if we flesh out our coverage of Dylan's attention/inattention to the factual content of the song:

Hattie Carroll was a maid in the kitchen
She was fifty [-one?] years old and gave birth to ten [attention to meter over facts!] children

would be a relevant place for what i brought here for further attention. --Jerzy•t 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I've restored the bio info about Hattie Carroll, which is highly relevant and directly on topic in an article titled The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll. Her background belongs here and to limit her identity to "black maid" reduces her to a racial stereotype. There's plenty of bio detail about her white assailant. Carroll is the more relevant individual; she is the person named in the title of the song. Readers should be allowed to compare for themselves as much as is known about her full identity in life with her identity in the song. I put it in a different section of the article where you may feel it flows better, but it is not at all off-topic. Such information is highly relevant to the legal system at trial and sentencing, and that is part of what made this case so scandalous. Beyond that, it's not appropriate to edit an article about the background of a song by making determinations of whether facts have "legal relevance" to the underlying case in the first place. Finally, re the moral relevance, as NPOV editors, Wikipedia requires us to leave it to the reader what moral weight they give to the facts, and it's not our place to censor them. --LisaSmall T/C 21:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Different issue: Jerzy, on the issue of "attention to meter over facts" you suggest as to why Dylan chose to say ten children rather than the actual 11, apparently he picked this up from a very early news report which has been transcribed here. I don't know how much we can say about Dylan's 10 v. 11 choice without slipping into our own speculation, which falls afoul of WP:NOR. Reading Absolutely Dylan would probably provide more detail, and speculations made by the book's authors could be cited (as such). Also, hope you'll forgive me, I refactored this section of the talk page from your title, "Accuracy Section?" to "Hattie Carroll accuracy" to be more descriptive. If it's not okay, feel free to change it back. -- LisaSmall T/C 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Material to integrate from article on album

The following 5 'graphs, which contradict the accompanying article in places, are moved to this talk page from The Times They Are a-Changin'#The songs. The new section there deserves more than the lk to this talk page's article that i left, but probably needs at most a well chosen 'graph or two, like the other songs. Some of the following is apparently wrong (contradicting the accompanying article without as much sourcing), but there is probably verifiable and useful material to add:

"Possibly the most focused and precise and persuasive of [Dylan's] protest songs", according to Wyman, "'The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll' tells the story of a rich tobacco-farm owner (William Zantzinger, who is called "William Zanzinger" in the song) who kills his black servant (Hattie Carroll). Based on actual events, the song portrays Zantzinger as a privileged individual who kills Carroll by striking her with his cane at a society gathering, escaping with a nominal sentence because of his political connections.
The actual incident occurred at a society ball at the Emerson Hotel in Baltimore, Maryland on February 9, 1963. Twenty-four-year-old Zantzinger was intoxicated and began striking people with a wooden carnival cane. One of the people he struck was Carroll, then a fifty-one-year-old barmaid with an enlarged heart and severe hypertension. When she questioned his need for another drink, Zantzinger became verbally abusive. He succeeded in upsetting Carroll, and on returning to the kitchen she complained about Zantzinger to a co-worker. Carroll then collapsed, and she was taken to a hospital where she died the following morning. Though there were no severe marks reported on Carroll's body, no autopsy was performed to determine the exact cause of death.
Zantzinger was charged with involuntary manslaughter since his actions, according to the courts, contributed to "a tremendous emotional upsurge" that ultimately killed her; on August 28, 1963, Zantzinger was sentenced to six months in prison, which he began serving on September 15, and paid $25,000 in damages to Carroll's family.
"The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" suggests that Zantzinger had political connections that came to his advantage during sentencing. His father, Richard C. Zantzinger, had served a term in the Maryland legislature and on the state planning commission.
A few critics like Clinton Heylin would take issue with the facts portrayed in the song, but even Heylin himself conceded that the song is "a brilliant evocation of the kind of miscarriage of justice the color of a woman's skin could bring...[it is] Dylan's 'Vanity of Human Wishes'...a masterpiece of drama and wordplay..."

--Jerzy•t 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As to the last sent above, Samuel_Johnson#Poetry lists "Vanity of Human Wishes", and discusses a revised pair of lines.
--Jerzy•t 23:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commas

there should be no comma in 1960s. some of the best have made this mistake. william f. buckley, jr. made it in print for at least the first couple of decades of his public career before someone finally woke up and brought it to his attention. just imagine his horror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.162.242 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split: No

A {{splitsection|William Devereux Zantzinger}} box was inserted in the "Impact on Zantzinger" section by someone who did not mention it in their edit explanation, suggesting he should be pulled out of this article and given one of his own. I removed the box. William Zantzinger has no encyclopedic weight except as the subject of this famous song. Even in the context of the Wiki Criminal Biography project, I couldn't justify giving him a separate article. Furthermore, removing his bio data from this article leaves the song without context and without contrast to the actual crime. Also, this issue has already been discussed here on the talk page in the trust fund discussion above.

Finally, whoever pulled the crime categories out of the hidden materials at the end of this article, without explanation—please don't do that. It is an important part of Wikipedia:CRIMINAL. -- LisaSmall T/C 23:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraudster

I removed Category:American fraudsters because this song is obviously not a fraudster. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)