Talk:Big Bill Broonzy

Reference tag

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)

1950s

It says that after his 1951 tour in Europe, Broonzy toured with famous people, including Lead Belly. I find this hard to believe, since Lead Belly died in 1949. What's the reference?

Influences and style

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)

I replaced the link to Jimmie Rodgers (country musician) with one to Jimmy Rogers (blues musician). I thought it's more likely that it was Rogers who influenced Broonzy. Does anyone know which is correct? Zariane (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's Jimmie rodgers who was his influence Not Jimmy. Check Jimmy's birth date to see why. If you think that makes sense. I'ld revert the edit.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right, and I've changed it back to Rodgers - thanks. Zariane (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discography

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)

Yes, please list his complete discography! That would be excellent. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 17:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Swingin the Dream

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)

Sharecropper

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)

Early years and year of birth

If 1903 is the commonly assumed birth date, he should have been about 12 years old in 1915. Is that plausible with "Broonzy was married and working as a sharecropper"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.85.39 (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, he was reportedly drafted in 1917, which again would argue against the 1903 date. I notice that most of the dates given seem to tie better to the 1898 date given as his date of birth in the article rather than either the 1893 or 1903 dates. DocKrin (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be some consistency here, and an appraisal of the best and most reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

His gravestone - [1] - states 1893, and the Encyclopedia of Arkansas favors 1893(?) However, this page, drawing on Robert Riesman's research, states:

Despite years of research, the details of William Lee Conley Broonzy's birth date remain problematic. He may have been born on 26 June 1893 - the date of birth he often gave - or according to Bill's twin sister Laney, it may have been in 1898. Laney claimed to have documents to prove that. However, definitive research undertaken by Bob Reisman has changed the picture. Bill often regaled audiences with tales of his birth on 26 June 1893 and that of his twin sister Laney and of his father's response to being told he had twins to care for. He claimed to have served in the US Army in France from 1918 - 1919 and to have been invited by a record company to travel to the Delta following a major flood in 1927: Turns out, that a good deal of this was fiction at worst and faction at best. Robert Reisman's impeccable research suggests a birth date for Bill of 26th June 1903 (and in Jefferson County, Arkansas, not Scott Mississippi as previously suggested). Laney was not a twin at all but four years older than Bill. (She was born in 1898). Bill spoke and sang about experiences in the US army and of his return from France to Arkansas/Mississippi. It turns out though, that the reported army experience was Bill's factional description of an amalgam of the stories told by black soldiers returning from overseas. A trip Bill claimed to have made to Mississippi in 1927 to the flooding was similarly untrue, but was a factional account into which Bill inserted himself...... Between 1912 and 1917, Bill (Lee) worked as an itinerant preacher in and around Pine Bluff. It is not known why he changed his name.

If the 1903 birthdate is correct, some of the other information in the article must be incorrect - such as him marrying by 1915. Views, anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry to see this article wasn’t amended, despite your clear statement of absolute implausibility of the various presentations of facts on the page. Drdarnold (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

If whoever is given final say wants to use Reiman’s dates, then please rewrite the rest of the article so that so many other issues (dates/events) have some plausibility. Drdarnold (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

1903 just seems completely unrealistic and I've never had the impression that it was the "Commonly assumed" date, there is to much to contradict it. When I originally did a a big reworking of this article I went with 1898 citing Stambler et al. If you follow the refrences now it looks like Stambler claims 1903 when in fact it does not. I don't know about Reisman's work and would be interested to see if any other researches back it up. Meanwhile I would stick with the way I originally set out the article, noting the disputed birth date and going with his sisters account. They were twins and so presumably had the same birth date ;-). (granted maybe his sister preferred to disguise her own true age and adopted the later date ;-) )Darrell Wheeler (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree 1903 looks unrealistic, but equally I'm sure Reisman is better informed than I am. He claims they were not twins - Loney was four years older. Perhaps the article should lead on 1893, as I think that is what most sources suggest, but with a WP:FOOTNOTE stating that sources differ, and other research suggests 1898 or 1903. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This debate has emerged again. The fact is that both the sources cited in the opening sentence - Eagle & LeBlanc, and Reisman - give his likely birth year as 1903. If we want to change the date, we need to use different sources. But, generally, I'm confident that Eagle & LeBlanc is the most reliable source on these matters, irrespective of what a gravestone might say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If he were born in 1903, he would have joined the military for a two year stint in WWI by 1916, at the latest (since the war ended in 1918). That would have made him 13, already with considerable field hand experience and a marriage behind him. By his own account, in interviews with Alan Lomax ("The Land Where" Blues Began," pp. 422 ff) he moved to Chicago after serving in the military. That would have put him there at the age 17. His own self-reported date for his marriage, before the war, was 1914. He would have been 11 according to the dates here. Someone might make mistakes about a few years difference in birthdate (at a time when records weren't kept well). Your dates assume that Big Bill Broonzy was lying about the major events of his life and that he remained consistent in the lies. 2600:1700:3990:44D0:91B3:8B5E:26C0:9FC0 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Paul Oliver, The Story of the Blues, Northeaster UP, 1997 (p. 112) notes June 1893 as the birthdate. This aligns with the dates shared by Broonzy in interviews conducted by Alan Loman, "The Land Where the Blues Began," Alfred Knopf, 1993 (p. 423). The dates should at least be listed as disputed. Or a span of years should be provided (1893-1903). Drdarnold (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Several reliable sources discuss the various dates (1893, 1989 1898, and 1903), but don't show a preference. In Listen to the Blues, author James Perone mentions that Riesman's biography includes "numerous such examples of the blues musicians's apparent permutation of an alternative biography" and that this is consistent with the "signifying trickster" tradition.[pp. 24–25] Perone points to a video of Broonzy performing in 1957[2] and notes "The viewer may want to consider whether Broonzy appears to be man of about 54 or 64."[p. 24] At this point, listing the different dates backed with reliable sources may be a better option, which is the approach taken in other blues bios, such as John Lee Hooker. But we should wait and see what others may have to say before making changes. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t read Reiman’s book yet. I have read many dozens of other histories and studies of the blues. In numerous of them, the earlier dates are given credibility. Does anybody here know whether Reiman considered that the birth certificate might have had a mistake on it? If there is any documentation that Broonzy was in fact in the military before the end of the first world war, then it’s for all intents and purposes impossible that he was born in 1903. As it is, the Wikipedia entry reads a bit incoherently. First of all the 1903 date is given as the date of birth. Then numerous discussions ensue, questioning the accuracy of date that date, and that, indeed, would show that date to be utterly absurd. I would suggest, in light of that, unless the article is rewritten completely, that the flexible dates be provided that are under dispute—that is, the span of time between 1893 and 1903. Drdarnold (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There’s also a problem that he is indicated, as having been died at the age of 55. Given the dispute about his birthdate. It would seem wise and would hopefully be uncontroversial to delete that.

I don’t doubt that many tricksters and showman lie about their birthdates or other details of their lives. But the information, as provided in the article, does not stand up to the scrutiny of common sense. Drdarnold (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This is rehashing a conversation that apparently led nowhere 13 years ago. The 1903 date is absolutely implausible given many other statements noted here as facts. But whoever was overseeing the edits in 2011 stuck with the date.

If there is a really compelling argument to accept that date, that’s fine. But then, as was suggested in 2011, rewrite the article to change rather substantive amount of information in it that is absolutely implausible if he was in fact born in 1903. Drdarnold (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm reading the Reisman biography. It is well-researched. The 1903 date may be correct. But if Reisman's argument about that is accepted, then other conclusions of Reismen's need to be reflected in the article in order for the article as a whole to be plausible. As is, the srticle accepts Reisman's birthdate (rejecting the autobiographical claims of Broonzy), but then it accepts other autobiographical claims of Broonzy that conflict with Reisman's further conclusions and that are fully implausible given Reisman's proposed birthdate. Reisman argues, for example, that Broonzy is simply unlikely to have served in the military. More generally, Reisman claims that Broonzy fictionalized major parts of his life story in his autobiography and interviews in the service of more poetic truths. This is for everything from who he first learned music from to who purchased his first instrument. That may all be true. But other sources used in the article to support numerous statements based on Broonzy's autobiography and interviews. So the article has numerous statements that, taken together with others, are completely implausible. I will suggest some changes in the presentation at a later time. Drdarnold (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This should probably be treated as a conflict between sources. Riesman bases his view on his research into Broonzy's family records and others apparently base theirs solely on the information that Broonzy provided. The article currently attempts to present both sides, but it could be clearer: information from Broonzy recollections (through Lomax and others) and from Riesman's research should each be identified as such. Suggestions on how to present this and lessen the appearances of implausibility would be helpful. Maybe Perone's comments about the trickster tradition could be added. Also, since many sources still use 1893 as his birthdate, perhaps it should be added to the lead and infobox provided there is sufficient explanation (as in a footnote or a PS in the citations). This was proposed in 2011, but 1903 was the only date used. P.S. I'll convert the current mishmash of citations to a harv ref style, so the sources may be more readily identified. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Perone's comments on the trickster tradition are excellent, and it would be helpful to include those. Drdarnold (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking back to the 2011 edits, it seems that I was waiting for other editors' comments - which never materialised - and I then either resisted the temptation to change the article based on my own opinion, or (more likely) forgot about it. The article does need some rewriting for clarity - which others, not me, now need to do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The second birth date has been added to the lead and infobox. The "Early years" section needs to be updated to reflect the conflicting sources and Drdarnold has indicated that he will be making some changes to the presentation. I suggest that some of the older sources, such as Stambler & Landon and Charters, be replaced with newer ones. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Discography, Selected singles, 1930: added "I Can't Be Satisfied"

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)

I forgot something (besides signing): Did any artist record an instrumental version of "I Can't Be Satisfied"? I think I've heard one before. ("I Can't Be Satisfied" by Muddy Waters is an altogether different song.) Preservationist957 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed: use of the term "Black" to describe "African-Americans" and "White" to describe "Caucasians"

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)

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)

Excuse me but I am a so-called "coloured" person. So unless you are yourself don't presume to tell me what I and my "black" or "mixed-race" friends find offensive or impolite. I don't like the use of that adjective to describe people. The fact that some African-Americans choose to describe themselves in those terms is not my concern. If Public Enemy want to release an album called "Fear Of A Black Planet" that's up to them and to me they are just as much to blame for racism as the Klan. If you use unclear differentiating terminology (and lets face it "black" and "white" are hardly precise terms to describe origin) regardless of the reasons then you've only yourself to blame when your children suffer racism. The so-called "Black Nationalism" of Malcolm X (though he late professed that he may himself have been wrong in thinking in such terms) is as disgusting to me as the Aryan views of the Nazis. Personally and especially in regards to the legacy of American slavery the terms need to be discarded and the correct technical terms need to be used. This may be simply a cultural disagreement with American editors as well as Caucasian European editors saying that the term is used freely in America (by both African-Americans and Caucasian-Americans) and elsewhere and I as a UK editor saying that we (as in non-Caucasian UK citizens) are doing are best on this fair isle to use a more concise and technical description of origin. This is not the 1940s; it is the year 2013. This in not the 1960s civil rights movement of a segregated American society; it is a 21st century encyclopedia with editors from all over the world. I have used the term "black" myself which I put down to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" theory of "if you hear something enough times then it will become a truism". I now make every effort to avoid such "wide and inaccurate" descriptions. The future is ours to shape - let that future not be dictated to us by the voices of the past.Sluffs (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that you were quite right to restore "he was told by a white man" because my edit had disrupted the context. Though I've changed it to "he was told by a Caucasian man". Sluffs (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I found this discussion to be very interesting. I found it quite surprising that the user wanted to correct what he perceived was racist language ("black") only to inadvertently use so much more uncontroversially racist language ("Caucasian") himself. C.harrison1988 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

THIS is what's wrong with Wikipedia

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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Big Bill Broonzy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Big Bill Broonzy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Black, Bown and White"

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Academic Research and Critical Thinking

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 3 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barnemj0 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Wilsole0 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)