Talk:Master Juba

Please keep the large Dickens quote

Dear future editors: I'm aware that such extensive quotes are not typically used in articles like this, but I ask you to make an exception in this case. Dickens captures the atmosphere magnificently and the final paragraph conveys more about Juba, I think, than entire chapters of dry historical writing could. Thx. JDG 22:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article sorely needs expansion, and should it make it to the length it deserves, the Dickens quote will not be obtrusive at all. I hope to one day take a crack at this article, with George Washington Dixon as a model of sorts. I really like the flavor that period quotes can bring to an article. — BrianSmithson 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with keeping the Dickens quote. - Jmabel | Talk 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio issues

This is an unfortunate case. This page has been a copyvio for a long time. Innocent editors have worked on it. But the meat of the article is still copied from another site. I used the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org and the other site looks like it came first. Especially given related pages, the audio version there, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 22:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Where do you think the copy vio occurred? The earliest versions of this article look little or nothing like the page at masterjuba.com. — BrianSmithson 22:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

All the way back at the second edit. Opening of the other page: "Master Juba’s real name was William Henry Lane. He was born a free black man in Rhode Island in 1825, and began his career as a performer in minstrel shows. He played the banjo and the tambourine and could imitate the moves of all of the best dancers of his time." Opening of the second edit: "Master Juba was the stage name of William Henry Lane. He was born a free black man in Rhode Island in 1825, and began his career as a performer in minstrel shows in the 1840s. He played the banjo and the tambourine and could imitate the moves of all of the best dancers of his time." The copvio was started by an anon. Therefore I didn't put a warning of the IP talk page. It looks like the anon tried to hide the copy vio. He didn't do it all at once and changed a tiny number number of words. The long Dickens quote is identical to the one at masterjuba.com, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Dickens quote is fair game, since it's PD. But I'll take a look at the rest later today to see if I can salvage it. -- BrianSmithson 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the article edit-by-edit and restored anything that did not originate from or build on anything from 204.210.36.114. The remaining article lacks some of the original context, but it's not copyvio. — BrianSmithson 12:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Dulcem, I took a shot at some of this. Let me know whether you find my edits helpful or not: you clearly know the topic better than I do, I'm just trying to smooth the writing, in the face of the criticisms of style on the FAC page. Do check to make sure that none of what I've written is misinterpretation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. I'll take a closer look this evening or in the morning, but so far what I've seen seems good. You've been a big help. — Dulcem (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unclear phrase

"Juba then billed himself as the 'King of All the Dancers' and played there for two weeks..." Referent of "there" is unclear: a city was mentioned, but not a venue. - Jmabel | Talk 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I've clarified that Boston was intended. — Dulcem (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Vauxhall

We quote, "The principal feature in entertainments at Vauxhall is Juba". Then several paragraphs later we say "The Serenaders continued through Britain and played such high-class establishments as the Vauxhall Gardens," but presumably "at Vauxhall" mean the Vauxhall Gardens. Unless there is some reason to think otherwise, we should resequence or reword. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to reorder. The idea was to keep all the praise/criticism of the European tour confined to one area, which necessitated the break in chronology. I'm not sure my change is any better though. What do you think? — Dulcem (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Much better. & thanks for the "Boston" clarification. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Integrated"

"He was a fully integrated member of the troupes with which he toured": given the racial connotations of "integrated", it seems a poor choice of word. How about "He an integral member of the troupes with which he toured"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this per your suggestion. Thanks. — Dulcem (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"moved north"

"Musicologist Hans Nathan has said that Juba was heir to a black tradition that likely moved north with free black migrants...": I realize this is a paraphrase of a source, so perhaps it should stay as it is, but why any need for "moved north"? There were plenty of blacks in New York City (although, of course, never as many as in the plantation states). New York had black slaves until 1827 (as well as a large free black population). - Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to reword the paraphrase to better represent Nathan's ideas. Thanks again, — Dulcem (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Juba and American Minstrelsy

I’m surprised that the article doesn’t mention where the "Juba and American Minstrelsy" was first published.

It appears to be in: Marian Hannah Winter, "Juba and American Minstrelsy," Dance Index Vol. 6 No. 2, February 1947 (pages ?)

Most authors prefer to cite: Chronicles of the American Dance, ed. Paul Magriel (H. Holt , New York, 1948), 39-63. Aa77zz (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Juba in the UK

A very interesting article, thanks to all concerned. About Juba in the UK - "Nevertheless, an element of exploitation followed him through the British Isles, with writers treating him as an exhibit on display" and "Master Juba's stint with Pell makes him the earliest known black performer to tour with a white minstrel troupe.[53] Scholars disagree over why he was allowed to do so. Dance historian Marian Hannah Winter argues that Juba was simply too talented to be held back. Dance historian Stephen Johnson sees Juba's talent as less central to the matter, and emphasizes the element of exoticism and exhibition in the tour." I think are interesting points that could be developed.

It must be borne in mind that the UK of the 1850's was a very white place: British-owned slaves had almost exclusively worked on the plantations in the West Indies, not in the UK itself and so there was virtually no slavery-derived black population as in the US - the large-scale migration of Afro-Caribbeans to the UK didn't really get underway til the late 1940's (see MV Empire Windrush). Also, the UK never had segregation/a colour bar the way the US did: there was a lot of racism, sure, but it was not legally formalised. So the idea of him being 'allowed' to perform with a white minstrel troup mustn't be viewed through the lens of the US experience. The UK has long been welcoming to US black performers, sometimes more so than their own country - more recently see the reaction of black US jazz musicians coming to the UK who were unused to being able to perform with white musicians (as discussed by Ken Clarke in his recent BBC radio series), Jimi Hendrix etc. 86.150.103.254 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with the statement in the article that Juba was quickly forgotten and references to him are rare. This was not so in the UK. In the Gale 19th c. newspapers database are several references to him throughout the 1850s as the gold-standard performer of black American dance, the man all others must be measured against. He wasn't practising a high-status form of art and so his fame was more ephemeral than that of, say, a famous ballet dancer might have been: but even as late as 1881 - thirty years after his death - a blackface entertainer in Bristol was billing himself as 'Boz Juba'. RLamb (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Racist Edits!

I think this page has been vandalize with some racist jargon. I can't fix it from my mobile phone (and I'm no editor anyway). But this is really bad since its black history month and its a featured article. Someone should revert the edits asap. -Miles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.103 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, they've been reverted. 86.147.162.38 (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Errors: ENGVAR, Year of death

Some discussion at WP:ERRORS about the date of death &c. when the article was featured again on 8 Feb 2026:

* The summary of today’s featured article uses inconsistent US and UK spellings. 2600 etc (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@TFA coordinatorsUser:Wehwalt User:Gog the Mild User:Z1720 - Original nominator hasn't edited in 16 years. HurricaneZeta^C 01:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Given that this is an American subject, I changed "popularised" to "popularized". – Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Juba's death is given twice in the main page summary as "1852 or 1853", however the article goes into considerable detail about 1854 as the most plausible year of death. I T B F 📢 06:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Recent scholarship tracing the movements of the subject in the UK, says "However, a recently-uncovered 1854 death certificate from Brownlow Hill Workhouse, Liverpool ... is the most likely end to his story, being buried at St-Martin-in-the-Fields’ free cemetery." Note that there's a bicentennial event coming up in May which indicates that this is still the subject of active research. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I've changed it to "early 1850s" in the blurb: clearly not as specific as we'd like to be, but avoids creating a direct conflict between the article and the blurb. The article itself is inconsistent, so currently fails to meet MOS:LEAD -- this is the sort of issue that really needs fixing for the article to maintain its star. Per the recent discussion on WT:ERRORS, it would seem reasonable to have that conversation on article talk now that the immediate problem of an error on the Main Page is removed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: 1854 is not early 1850s, and it seems like that's the most likely date as mentioned above. Please can we change to circa 1854.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Suppose it depends on your personal definition, but I suspect more people will be with yours than mine -- changed, though with the acknowledgement that this now does create an awkward blurb–article clash. I've provisionally made some edits to the latter to remedy? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

(I have also updated the article accordingly.)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• @Amakuru and UndercoverClassicist: Thanks for these updates but there's still an issue. The blurb now says he died around 1854, likely from overwork and malnutrition. But the 1854 date is based on the death recorded in the fever ward of the Brownlow Hill infirmary. That indicates death from an infectious disease and there was a cholera epidemic in Liverpool in that year, for example. So, I reckon we should say "likely from fever", not overwork. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I went with his death has been variously attributed to fever, overwork and malnutrition. Happy to defer to others but I worry that we're joining the dots ourselves here -- in particular, I'm not sure we're qualified to say whether a death medically caused by fever wasn't more fundamentally caused by overwork or malnutrition (and hence those were the reasons why he became ill or was more predisposed to die from the illness). Similarly, if one source says that his death was most likely in 1854, and the evidence for that date is also evidence for a cause of fever, I'm wary of WP:SYNTH in saying "therefore it's most likely that the cause of death was fever" when other sources give competing or complimentary explanations. I think we're now into problems with the article itself being internally confused, unfortunately: scanning through it I wasn't sure the level of clarity and verifiability was up to modern FAC standards. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The 1854 death date is cited in the article to the DNB and I've checked that now. That entry is credited to James W Cook, who seems very respectable and wrote:

  Part of the problem, it seems, was a spelling error on Lane's 1854 British death certificate, which listed him as Bois Juba (as opposed to 'Boz's Juba'). In every other respect, however, the certificate suggests a likely match, describing him as a thirty-year-old musician, born in the USA, who died on 3 February in the fever ward of Liverpool's Brownlow Hill workhouse. One can imagine the unfortunate scene in which a transcription error may have transpired. Arriving at the admission desk sick and tired, Lane would have given his name with an exotic New York accent unfamiliar to local ears. In this way, 'Boz's' probably became ‘Bois’, the final fading of a once dazzling star turn. His remains were buried in the free part of St Martin's cemetery, Liverpool, on 6 February.

  The theory about malnutrition and overwork comes from Winter's 1947 account. I've read that too now and it seems quite conjectural, not being based on any actual primary source such as the death certificate, but instead just some speculation about the effects of his lifestyle. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't looked at the sourcing in detail, but I get the impression the 1854 death and the Liverpool workhouse theory are in effect the version that WP:DUEWEIGHT would suggest we should go with. Two recent sources mention this, and it's based on evidence that didn't exist when the 1852/1853 sources were written. I agree about the level of sourcing not being up to modern FA levels. Personally I don't think we should be running ancient FAs of this nature, particularly when they haven't had a recent FAR, there are almost always issues that come up, both because scholarship moves on and because the standards at FAC were somewhat lower in 2008. But anyway, that's an unrelated question. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  OK -- now around 1854, probably of fever. Agreed with you on the broader context -- I'd feel much more comfortable if someone who really knows the topic could weigh in, but it sounds like we no longer have any editors who fit that description. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)