Talk:Big Bill Broonzy

message: I've removed the References needed tag from the article. Please put it back if you think there's not been enough improvementDarrell Wheeler (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference tag

message: I've done a lot of work on the Life and career section. I've pretty much been leaving the bits I've not used kind of drifting to the bottom of the article. as a consequence it's starting to look a real mess. I did try to write a referenced intro to the section. I have memory of seeing Eric clapton on some TV program talking about Big bill broonzy. In the program he was noting that while he is associated with the songs of R. Johnson it was realy the playing of Broonzy and the impact of seeing him perform live when Eric was a young teenager that realy motivated him to want to learn the blues in the first place. Does anyone out there in wikiland recall such a thing? maybe have it on DVD?Darrell Wheeler (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right, and I've changed it back to Rodgers - thanks. Zariane (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences and style

message: The "discography" is just a list of album reissues. Isn't there a proper discography that could be linked, showing actual release dates?
:Don't know. Is there? Perhaps you could find out, and edit the page accordingly.
Look in Blues & gospel records, 1890-1943  Dixon, Robert M. W.. It's been years since I've seen a copy and it's pricy as hell but it is as complete as possible and would certainly have the information for a major artist like Broonzy. If it's not under copyright, would it be acceptable to copy the listing into this entry with accreditation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.244.157 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please list his complete discography! That would be excellent. Regards.--GoPTCN 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discography

message: I took out the specific reference to the film version of this, just to be on the safe side, as I can't find it in any film reference or book about Louis Armstrong. It is likely Broonzy had a small part in the musical of that year of that name (which had a huge cast). He is not listed as a cast member on IMD, however. If someone can find a reference to a film or fragment of a film of Seldes' Broadway musical, they can put the reference back. It would be fascinating to see this if a print still exists (or ever existed).Mballen (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swingin the Dream 

message: The statement in the section Early Years that Broonzy was " working his own land as a sharecropper"  is inconsistent.  By definition a sharecropper is a type of tenant farmer - he doesn't own the land.  The book The Country Blues by Samuel Charters mentions on p. 177 that Broonzy did sharecropping in 1916, so I will correct the statement.  --Blainster (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharecropper

message: Source: An American Prayer: Big Bill Broonzy - All The Classic Sides 1928-1937. See also Allmusic "I Can't Be Satisfied" Big Bill Broonzy with music sample. I'm not very knowledgeable about blues and don't know whether he recorded additional versions.
I do know a thing or two about old country, and this song was covered by "King of Western Swing" Bob Wills as the B-side of "Wang Wang Blues" (Vocalion 03173, released 3/1936) with songwriter credit "Willie Broonzy". I probably don't know enough about blues to say, but it seems to me that Hank Williams may have borrowed this tune for his songs "Move It On Over" and "Mind Your Own Business."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preservationist957 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography, Selected singles, 1930: added "I Can't Be Satisfied" 

message: I've had some edits reverted by an editor who objected to me changing the terms "Black" to "African-American". I evidently have to leave a note on the Talk Page before I make a RFC. So I dispute his "good faith" reverts and will seek advice from senior editors about this issue. Until then I'm going to revert his edits and remove the anachronism of a terminology that has no place in a 21st century encyclopedia. Please note that the terms I've changed are not direct quotes and are part of the general information given in this article. 
Should be interesting to see what other Wikipedia editors think. 
Sluffs (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if my edit summary did not convey my objection accurately.  It was not the changing of the term "black" to "African-American" to which I objected most fundamentally - I use, and have used, both terms in music biographies, and in the context of this article I believe that either is acceptable. (Though I saw, and see, no reason to diverge from "black" in this case - it is not, in my view, anachronistic, or "terminology that has no place in a 21st century encyclopedia". See our article: "The term 'black people' is an everyday English-language phrase".)  But, I strongly dislike the use of the word "Caucasian" for "white" - it's inaccurate, incorrect (especially if used in lower case), and appears to me to convey some antiquated and flawed racial stereotypes.  Even more, I objected to Sluffs' removal of the word "white" from the sentence: "Broonzy returned to Pine Bluff, Arkansas where he is reported to have been called a racial epithet and told by a white man he knew before the war that he needed to "hurry up and get his soldier uniform off and put on some overalls...".  It is a fundamental element of Broonzy's story that he was told this by a white man, and removing the epithet removes the point of the story, which was to highlight the racist discrimination that he faced.  I thought Sluffs' edit on that point was so misjudged that it justified me reverting his/her edits as a whole - I didn't fundamentally object to all of them, though I thought that none of them were necessary or helpful.  So, my view is that "white" should remain throughout, in preference to "Caucasian" (or, even worse, "caucasian"), and that "black" should remain in place of African-American, though I'm perfectly happy to be guided by whatever the current consensus or style guides indicate on that point.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

text: That's very interesting, and I respect what you say.  Equally, I certainly didn't "presume" anything in my previous comments.  However, I think that your personal opinions on what you consider offensive or impolite are not really relevant here.  The fact is that the terms "black people" and "white people" are very widely used and understood, in common parlance and in this encyclopedia, and generally, in my view, are not considered offensive by most people. But, even if I agreed with your argument about "black" being an outmoded term (which I do, to some extent), WP is not a vehicle for promoting your own views, or your own opinions on terminology.  If we know what terminology the sources for this article use, we should use the same terms here. We should certainly use US terminology, as Broonzy was American.  For what it's worth, the last US Census used the terms White; and Black, African American, or Negro.  You personally find the term "black people" offensive; I do not, but I do find the term "Caucasian" open to considerable misunderstanding, obsolete and objectionable. (I hesitate to use the word "offensive", but I personally would never, ever, describe anyone, or any group of people, in that way - unless they came from the Caucasus. I think it is quite simply wrong to think of the term as "technically" correct in any way.)  More to the point, I don't think the term is as widely used or understood as "white people".  I don't have any problem with the terms "African-American", "black people" or "white people", but I do object to "Caucasian".  It would be interesting to get the views of other editors at WP:RFC on that point, if you want to retain that word.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree up to a point. As I pointed out before because of the common usage of the terms "black" and "white" I find myself using them but I must find the strength and discipline to enforce the change upon myself. Its laziness of mind not too seek change. All humans when communicating in a fast manner will grab the easiest terms to express themselves even if the terms are general and too wide in application. This is why Aristotle and Hume are very difficult authors to read because they choose a technical and highly condensed writing style in an attempt to ensure correct interpretation. It would be interesting to study the terminology used by the Arabs who were the earliest outside people to have extensive influence and contact on the African continent. Since Arab pigmentation is Eastern it would be interesting to see if they assigned any significance or singular linguistic term to describe the Africans (who they would have noted had a far darker pigmentation) they encountered. We may find there's many shades of racism built into all languages with the darkest pigmentation being assigned as undesirable even amongst the Eastern races and tied into to a human being nearer to the "original" animal condition (something Iago exploits with his use of the term "Black Ram" as well as other colourful terms to inflame others to hate the Moor). "Black" is the darkest of all colours (darker than brown for sure) that the use here on this site would please Iago immeasurably especially in its generalization and a lack of true origin description. Also surely then I am free to go to all the Articles related to India, Arabia and anywhere else where the so-called "brown" people are and change all generalizations. That would mean for lets say the Ravi Shankar article (using the sentences from the Broonzy article): "His career began in the 1950s when he played ragas to mostly brown audiences". That's absolute rubbish and the use of "black" here is nothing more than a cultural reflection of the legacy of American slavery. As for Wikipedia guidelines and policies they do represent a European-American view and I oppose their static nature. So since the Soapbox view of an editor is considered counter-productive (quite ironic since the policies and guidelines themselves represent the biggest Soapbox of the people of Northern European pigmentation ever constructed on this site) I will keep applying polite and sustained pressure through my editing until you philosophically come to the correct moral conclusion of what your use of the terms "black" and "white really states.
Just to leave you with one more example. Here's the second sentence I changed in the Broonzy article transposed to a fictional Ravi Shankar article:
"Through the ‘60s and ‘70s he successfully navigated a transition in style to a sound popular with working class brown audiences"
At least the term African-American tells the reader that the person is an American with African heritage though may not specify the actual shade of pigmentation. Not all things to do with language are "black and white". 
 
Sluffs (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But the difference is that "black" and "white" are terms that are (and were) used very commonly to define groups in US society - see the Census classification, for instance - and "brown" generally isn't, however correct or incorrect that usage might be.  The US doesn't have its first mid-brown President - it has its first black President.  My basic point is that Wikipedia uses the terms that the world most often uses, and most easily understands.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  lol. That was quick. Society needs classification but this is an Encyclopedia and has the power to shape views rather than collate information for governmental planning purposes. There has to be an ethos behind this site and why not a progressive policy of correct technical terms to increase the intelligence and abiilties of everyone who reads an article. Maybe they dumb down the census to make it understandable to everyone - one way to make the census easy to fill in would be too not use technical terms but broad generalizations. Look I really need to get back to the serious job of editing articles so I'm going to have a day or two off from this interesting talk (I'm being serious its enjoyable to flex the grey matter). I'll catch up with this in a few days. Cheers its been interesting.
BTW America has its first mixed-race President.
Sluffs (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. Therefore there is not a shared view between editors about which words best describe someone's nationality and genetic heritage. The question must be posed that if the Wikipedia guidelines states that the word "black" is commonly understood by all to mean African and that its use is benign in intent; who is it that decided that common use implies acceptance without protest? I don't see that its wise to accept that a site such as the English Wikipedia which is obviously based on majority consensus shouldn't be questioned. I don't consider the terms "black" and "white" as overtly racist words; I just consider them as imprecise and a bit "old fashioned" in a networked world. A bit like calling South-East Asian people "the yellow peril" or Irish people "paddy" - just doesn't work on the internet. Comes across as belonging to an age before the net. Sluffs (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed: use of the term "Black" to describe "African-Americans" and "White" to describe "Caucasians" 

message: I direct your attention to Big Bill Broonzy's date of death. Sequestered on the right side, in a box, the day he died is listed as August 14, 1958 but the article itself states Big Bill Broonzy died on  August 15, 1958. Don't feel bad; if you go to the article for Alan Moulder you will see the same stupid mistake. If an article doesn't even agree with itself then why should the reader believe anything which is written in the article; it all becomes suspect. These kind of mistakes are the reasons why people criticize Wikipedia as worthless; DUMB mistakes which should be easily recognizable. The gatekeeper of this Wiki article has the ultimate responsibility for making sure that the information is correct and accurate, there should not be any contradictions and the information flows along chronologically. 184.76.56.97 (talk)JSJR 01272014  —Preceding undated comment added 04:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "gatekeeper" of this article.  You could have corrected it just as well as anybody else.  Sources seem to vary between the 14th and 15th, so I will leave it uncertain until someone provides proof of one date or the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS is what's wrong with Wikipedia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Big Bill Broonzy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110613030754/http://centerstage.net/music/whoswho/BigBillBroonzy.html to http://centerstage.net/music/whoswho/BigBillBroonzy.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141018070445/http://vimeo.com:80/80701887 to https://vimeo.com/80701887
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070719044445/http://www.oldtownschool.org/history/night.html to http://www.oldtownschool.org/history/night.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Big Bill Broonzy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080530104604/http://www.loc.gov/folklife/guides/Mississippi.html to http://www.loc.gov/folklife/guides/Mississippi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090616090353/http://www.rorygallagher.com:80/biography.htm to http://www.rorygallagher.com/biography.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the third paragraph of "Style and Influence", I deleted the following sentence:
"the boy had even tried to scrub the black off his skin and made threats to kill himself"
as irrelevant and unnecessarily revealing of the misery of a nine-year-old child. Jwicklatz (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Black, Bown and White" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Wilsole0 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Academic Research and Critical Thinking