Talk:Footprints (poem)

Good call, seems it is Stevenson - will correct it now. (source) -- 81.99.181.231 11:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page seems to be arguing with itself about authorship. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia format.

Agreed. I took it out. Miss Dark 01:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the dispute found its with to federal court and the Stevenson claim of copyright was upheld as first. There is a forensic report that places a copy written in her hand on period paper and ink and pencil to the middle 1930s.

No one else can produce a shred of concrete evidence to prove a prior claim, had a day in court, and lost. 24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be used as a platform for arguing one claim of authorship over any others. Wikipedia places heavy stress on

This "poem" is typically four or five paragraphs long. There's no meter, rhyme, or rhythmic intent. There are no well-placed line breaks, no toying with language, no artful structuring. It's obvious that this is more of an essay than a poem. Should it be moved to Footprints (story) or something similar? Dyfsunctional 13:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with this concern, but google revealed that at least one person who asserts authorship calls it a poem (http://www.footprints-inthe-sand.com/index.htm), and other results have more along those lines. For more input, i'd suggest listing this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poetry. "alyosha" (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no recognized author, there is no copyright on it, right? I have a store-bought cross with this poem written on it hanging on my child's wall. May I copy the words from it onto the page for this article?

David —The preceding

• The problem is that there are at least three copyright claims to the poem by three different people, and maybe more. Probably at least two of those claims must be unjustified (and maybe all of them are). But there might be one claimant who does hold a valid and justifiable copyright in the poem, even if we don't know which one that is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stevenson copyright claim supercedes the others. The federal court decision actually forbid one party from every claiming any rights whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.153 (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction in part or in whole is forbidden without prior permission and written consent. 24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That ain't how it works, fam. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and left this on the talk page of the person who added it:

Hello. Thank you for adding the text of the "Footprints" poem to Footprints (poem). I have removed it for three reasons:

1) The page says elsewhere that the author is unknown; if you add a paragraph stating who the author is, you would need to change the other part of the page as well.

2) You make a claim as to who the author is without giving any sources where that claim can be verified.

3) If, as you claim, this was written in 1963, then as you say it is almost certainly still in copyright. Therefore, it cannot be reproduced in Wikipedia without a specific set of rights being given away by the copyright holder.

I hope this explains my changes; feel free to come and discuss it at Talk:Footprints (poem). Marnanel (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered whether to make "The Lord" a link;

As long as there is doubt as to the author of the poem it seems improper to credit it to any other than "Author anonymous" as it was origionaly released. Carty is the only author who copyrighted "author anonymous." 12.73.18.153 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LMFAO no, an improper registration is in no way, shape, or form "theft." That's not how it works. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the email address that was in the references, as it fails both

You have included an author (Floyd Keeton) in your list of authors for this poem based on I know not what. In attempting to verify his alledged authenticity I contacted the Montgomery county historical society in Red Oak Iowa where his papers are supposed to be housed. They inform me that they have no record of Floyd Keeton having written the poem "footprints in the sand" in thier records. In view of this I think you should give serious consideration to removing his name from the list of authors of this poem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.188.125 (talk • contribs) 00:54 25 September 2009

You'll note that this article doesn't mention Montgomery County Historical Society in Red Oak, Iowa. It does provide the copyright data of the publication that contains his version of the poem.jonathon (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "is now public domain property and was later copyrighted by Mary Stevenson Zangare in 1984." Either the poem is under copyright, or it is public domain. With a 1984 copyright date, it would not be public domain today.

The critical issues are:

• When was the poem first published?
• Under what conditions was it published?

Given that the article states that there are three entities claiming copyright, and that that the version published here is under copyright, I deleted the poem.jonathon (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66.228.221.110 claimed: Date of original publication: June 6,1922. Place of original publication: Published by the founding father of Library week from Hopewell, New Jersey. Publisher Robert Louis Scharring-Hausen, Ella H. Scharring-Hausen's husband.

( I removed that content from where it was intermixed with those of the above poster. This anon editor (66.228.221.110) also edited other posts written by other people on this talk page.) p (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I have removed the Hume reference. It is just not relevant:

"If you saw upon the sea-shore the print of one human foot, you would conclude, that a man had passed that way, and that he had also left the traces of the other foot, though effaced by the rolling of the sands or inundation of the waters."

i.e. both feet belong to one (human) body; the missing prints have been erased (whereas int he poem they were never there. There is no reference to divine companionship or assistance. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deleting Carolyn Joyce Carty sites copyright infringement on all parties named except Ella H. Scharring-Hausen because, as written, it is meaningless. If "cites", rather than "sites" is meant, it is still a meaningless statement. If, instead, "issued citations" is meant, then a reference to lawsuits that have been filed by Carolyn Joyce Carty is needed. jonathon (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the legal case template. This way the article can explain the case, without running into too much legal terminology. jonathon (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to PACER, but I found a couple of unreliable sources on the Internet that implied the plaintiff prevailed in their claims.jonathon (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharring-Hausen's account is contradicted by McCarty's account. The matter was settled in USDC/EDNY. Stevenson's copyright prevailed. The other claims of authorship have no legal standing.24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User 66.228.221.110 altered the above statements to read:Legal action (2007) in the Eastern District of New York (federal court) .. judge ruled a default. She was first. The other claimants are no longer a factor. Carty's claims are valid with the release of the entire collection. No supporting evidence was provided for that alteration. p (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been re-adding She did not register a copyright with the US Copyright Office. because the other claimants also have a line or two about their copyright filings, or lack thereof.

I've been re-adding All claims regarding her authorship have been made by third parties because she does not appear have publicly claimed that this work is her. If Ella Scharring-Hausen did make such a claim, then where she made such a claim needs to be cited.jonathon (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharring-Hausen's account is contradicted by McCarty's account. The matter was not settled in USDC/EDNY. Stevenson's copyright. The other claims of authorship have no legal standing.24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deleting the phrase verified by polygraph from the article. For starters, the results of the test are not publicly available. Secondly, polygraph tests measure neuromuscular responses. Thirdly, training on how to "defeat" a polygraph test is available throughout the world. Fourthly, at best, polygraph tests indicate beliefs an individual has. As such, facts are irrelevant.jonathon (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The keys here are, I think, verifiability and neutrality. It's no good just saying "proved by polygraph". If an editor can find a reliable source - preferably multiple reliable sources - for the fact that the polygraph happened and what the result was, and it is written up in a neutral way then I don't think there would be a problem. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Actualy the polygraph in question is available to anyone by simply e-mailing to [email protected] and requesting it. Of course you will only get a copy of the original. The examination ID is # TPOSOSO7128

By the way, if you can beat say, a police polygraph examiner, by any means that you choose, I will give in to your point of view. (but you cannot). Neither can Zangre, Fishback, Carty nor any of the others who are claiming my poem. That is why they refuse to take a police examiner's polygraph test. [email protected]

Above unsigned comment by 71.193.134.106

a) email addressees are not reliable sources; b) Even if something is delivered, there is no authentication that what is delivered is a valid copy of the authentic, original results; c) There is no way to determine how much coaching was given, prior to the test being administered;

daoist|talk]]) 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

71.236.242.44 (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bogus entry. Webb refused to appear in a civil case in federal court to "prove" his position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can be sung to the Londonderry Air/O Danny Boy tune and can be found here: http://www.raglan.churchuk.net/Footprints2%20text.htm Could someone insert this into the main page, please?

No. Just because it can, doesn't mean that it's relevant. You could sing it to the tune of Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire if you tried; doesn't mean it belongs in the article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless somebody wants to add sourcing in linking to literary criticism of the piece, it seems out-of-place to note that critics have debated the literary merits of the piece in the intro. This could doubtlessly be said of every piece of literature or writing that's ever gotten any degree of scrutiny. It seems like the point of this line is to say, in effect, "It's a chintzy, silly poem, but God bless 'em, those Christians love it". It would be dubious to include the line even if it was sourced, since, like I said, the same could be said of any literary creation, but sourcing would at least make it less opinion-y. Just a thought. 167.219.88.140 (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC) A mother carries a baby, they are by the water, not quite understanding173.62.160.246 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all specific claims of authorship. Wikipedia is not the place for discussing and resolving copyright disputes nor is it interesting in a larger context, it is sufficient to note in this article that the original authorship is uncertain and disputed. Those who wish to discuss it in more detail can do so in other places. henrik•talk 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship is part and parcel of the notability of this specific poem. As such, to not list who the alleged authors are, and the results of the court cases about authorship, is to deliberately and wilfully omit the significant datapoints about this specific poem.jonathon (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The details of the dispute of the authorship are not essential to notability of this piece. You're suggesting causality in the wrong direction: The many authorship claims are not the cause of the fame of this poem, they are with large probability a result of it. We do note that the authorship is disputed, and give interested readers pointers to the Poetry Foundation article where they can learn further details. In disputed cases, getting too much into details invariably results in strife and poor prose: someone will claim that their side is not covered fairly and you end up with articles which are half copyright registration claims - something very few readers are likely to be interested in. henrik•talk 21:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with jonathon, hence I have reverted henrik's good faith and bold removal of the authorship information, since it is verified and seems relevant to the article. Just as a btw, the information about June Hadden Hobbs' views is not about authoriship as such, but concerns the origin of the narrative idea, so should stay even if authorship information was removed. I declare an interest - I put that snippet in! Springnuts (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you must have it, please rewrite it into coherent text instead of a laundry list of conflicting claims and uninteresting copyright registration notices (for inspiration, see the Poetry foundation article). henrik•talk 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to note conflicting claims in a single brief sentence, largely for the reasons articulated by henrick. Sometimes, as with Shakespeare, authorship has great historical significance and significant impact on interpretation and on scholarly work. That isn't the case here. This is just airing claims, some good faith, some probably not, and none illuminating the underlying meaning. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Legal suits, counter-suits can be endless. It isn't an encyclopedia's purpose to document uncited perceptions of the legal status of situations in flux. Wiki isn't a battleground, a soapbox, or a kangaroo court. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, no-one has attempted to improve the, to outsiders largely incomprehensible, list of conflicting authorship claims since my note above (except for a banned user who had returned to push her own views). I still contend that this revision is a better resource to our readers than the current version. henrik•talk 13:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints or discussion for over a day, so I've restored that revision with some additions: the text about June Hadden Hobbs' views and an AF 447 mention. I don't think this version lacks any significant information of the old revision, except authorship claims & copyright registration numbers. For that, we point the interested reader to the Poetry Foundation article which covers it in far better detail than this article can do.

To the anonymous user: you're welcome to discuss proposed additions to the article here, but please understand that wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. You'll need to engage with the editors here and follow our rules and guidelines if you wish this article to reflect your input. henrik•talk 20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal suits are NOT endless. A 2007 USDC/EDNY case verified Stevenson's copyright of the poem. There has been no further litigation. All other parties who surface here were on the losing end of the decision. 24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope this doesn't fall into the category of belaboring a defunct equine, but the article

No objections having been forthcoming, I took the liberty of adding a one-sentence clarification about M.F.A., taking care not to mention M.F.P. by name so as to avoid inviting specific mention of the other claimants. If anyone has problems with what I did, the "revert" button is always available. Drhoehl (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone started to detail claims again; I've trimmed the entry back, but now M.F. Powers is cited by name. I'd be perfectly happy with writing her name back out entirely, but I'll leave that to other hands. I would, however, urge that we retain the disclaimer about Margaret Fishback Antolini to counter the frequent misattributions of this text to her. Drhoehl (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article includes an entire section about adaptations, which starts off with the song, do we still need the cross reference at the top reading approximately "for the song see..."? Drhoehl (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1981 Edgel Groves released the first known song version of this poem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirules house (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC) (moved here by Springnuts (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

He also did, as have dozen's of others, released unauthorized versions and uses. To date only a couple of persons have been granted lyric permissions. Edgel Groves is not one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.101.153 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A random anon saying so is not a valid source for whether permissions have been granted, and you've not provided one shred of evidence for any of the many naked assertions you've made on this talk page over the past 13 years. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who originally wrote the poem 'Footprints in the sand, but I can tell you that I have a broadside, which is dated November 15, 1869. The broadside is an announcement of a Minstral Troupe appearing at Friendship Hall in Philadelphia on Nov. 15, 1869. It is titled Grand Complimentary Testimonial to Mr. Wm. M. Flood, Wood's Burlesque Troupe and a a host of volunteers. It lists many performmances by various actors. One of them reads: Dramatic Readings; also one reads 'Footprints in the sands by W. M. Flood. The broadside is a woodcut print. It was engraved by Adrian Probasco, Philadelphis and was printed by Ledger Job Print, Philadelphis.

I don't know if this is the same poem but one has to wonder.

````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9thstinstpete (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the copyrighted text referring to the footprints poem under the photo. This text is copyrighted and cannot be used.

Donetalking45 (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Not certain about the copyright issue. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Authorship and origins," after the sentence citing Aviv's Poetry Foundation article, the following summary of that article should be inserted:

The article observes that Margaret Fishback Powers has a registered copyright as author of the poem, and has licensed the work to dozens of companies including Hallmark Cards and Lenox gifts. Mrs. Powers is also the owner of the trademarks FOOTPRINTS and FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND, which are registered in the United States and abroad for a broad array of products and services.

Kipdutine (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined -- no sources provided to validate that assertion. ⇒SWATJester <sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup> 04:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Footprints (poem). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213002152/http://musicnews.virginmedia.com/news/?news_id=52026 to http://musicnews.virginmedia.com/news/?news_id=52026

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Themysteryguy: I'm afraid this section still has the same issues I tagged it with earlier this month, perhaps more so. I wonder if you've read the Wikipedia:No original research policy, and in particular the section on synthesis?

To add a statement to a Wikipedia article, you need a reference for that specific statement, and a reference that it is relevant to the topic being discussed; not merely evidence that the thing you are talking about exists. For example, from the top of this section:

Prior to its appearance in the late 1970s as a key phrase in the poem, and its popular tile, the phrase "footprints in the sand" occurred in limited (but occasionally widely read) contexts, including prose, published work titles, and poetry.

The most dominant usage in prose is in the context of fictional or actual adventure or mystery stories or articles. Prominent fictional stories would include Daniel Defoe's 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe; and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Foot-prints on the Sea-shore, first published in the journal Democratic Review [8]

That first paragraph has no references at all. On whose authority are the contexts declared "limited"? In the second paragraph, the reference demonstrates that the work Foot-prints on the Sea-shore exists; but that doesn't provide references for any of the other statements - by what authority do we establish that adventure and mystery stories are "the most dominant usage in prose" of the phrase? Just demonstrating that one such story exists isn't sufficient to state this.

Finally, the relevance of the content to the article needs to be established - to add to the article about the footprints poem content about Robinson Crusoe is, I'm afraid,

This section might make an interesting blog post, but I'm afraid I'm not currently convinced that very much of it belongs on this Wikipedia page, unless reliable sources can be found for all the assertions made, and tying them to the Footprints poem. (Even then they might be better as a separate "Footprints in the sand" article, as the vast majority of the section doesn't relate to the poem.) TSP (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search indicates an appearance in a March 1977 edition of Imola News link which was the in-house newspaper of the Napa State Hospital. There is also a newsletter from 1976. Can these be added? Sheila1988 (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]