Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Paul Robeson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→His spouse: declare my bias
Line 576: Line 576:
You can put who Robeson's spouse was in an infobox, if you like. But I will not allow an edit to use the term spouse in the body of the article. I am really sorry. The strangest thing about Paul Robeson Jr.'s book that I may have inaccurately comprehended is that he did not like his mother. I can not figure it out. But the term "spouse" does not exist in FA [[Malcolm X]], GA [[Abraham Lincoln]], or GA [[George Washington]]. The term spouse in the body of the article is a no go. I did toy with the words "his wife" as compared to "Essie" but Essie was 3 bytes shorter (if his wife was shorter I would have use it) - that's the honest truth - but, spouse is a no go. [[Special:Contributions/66.234.33.8|66.234.33.8]] ([[User talk:66.234.33.8|talk]]) 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You can put who Robeson's spouse was in an infobox, if you like. But I will not allow an edit to use the term spouse in the body of the article. I am really sorry. The strangest thing about Paul Robeson Jr.'s book that I may have inaccurately comprehended is that he did not like his mother. I can not figure it out. But the term "spouse" does not exist in FA [[Malcolm X]], GA [[Abraham Lincoln]], or GA [[George Washington]]. The term spouse in the body of the article is a no go. I did toy with the words "his wife" as compared to "Essie" but Essie was 3 bytes shorter (if his wife was shorter I would have use it) - that's the honest truth - but, spouse is a no go. [[Special:Contributions/66.234.33.8|66.234.33.8]] ([[User talk:66.234.33.8|talk]]) 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
: I am extremely, extremely pro-biased Essie.[[Special:Contributions/66.234.33.8|66.234.33.8]] ([[User talk:66.234.33.8|talk]]) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
: I am extremely, extremely pro-biased Essie.[[Special:Contributions/66.234.33.8|66.234.33.8]] ([[User talk:66.234.33.8|talk]]) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

== Introduction by itsmejudith ==

Don't take it personal. I have over 1k edits in this article. By and large 950 of them were junk. But if you make a statement in the intro, it has to be supported in the body of the article with a citation. Those are the rules of the game. Your statement is non-existent in the article with a citation. Furthermore, a 2 sentence open introductory paragraph is a major no-go. It has to be 3 sentences at the very least and should be 4, if not 5. I'm not going to complain because it's wonderful to have you back editing while I really can not afford to edit now. Best of luck with this article, but please follow the rules to the game. [[Special:Contributions/66.234.33.8|66.234.33.8]] ([[User talk:66.234.33.8|talk]]) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:31, 25 May 2012

Template:Pbneutral


Next two primary goals

  1. When and if he became a socialist. His son is strongly in favor of him being a socialist in the 1930s. If so, then when?
  2. What was Robeson's contribution to the, in the abstract, Spanish Civil War? I mean musically, was he a leader in creating Battle Hymns?

These are the 2 topics I would research next. I do not see him being outside the mainstream. I do not see him in having any knowledge that Stalin caused the Great Famine. IMHO, I see no way to blame him for understating the purges of Russia in 1937 and 1938 (and the millions or people that were killed during it). My info shows that his son is wrong - my reading suggests that he was not he was an extreme socialist in the 1930s, although he abundantly enjoyed reading Marx's book. It's inescapable that Robeson left Harlem high and dry. I do not agree with his son that he had become a hardcore socialist in the 1930s based on what I read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

his son became a communist - unless I am mistaken, and Du Bois because a communist without a doubt. This article should not rely on his son's interpretation of events solely. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
main failing of Robeson's son is to portray him as a follower; he was not; he was a leader (for better or worse) and he got screwed for it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have isolated 20 books on Robeson w respect to the SCW at Lincoln Center to investigate battle hymns. It looks like a lot but it's really only 1.5 hours worth of work. I can afford that. But I do not think I will come up with anything and I will have to remove some stuff in this article. I think this article will fail in properly assessing his impact on the history of music w respect to battle hymns and also will cause me to remove stuff about me him being a leader in certain respects. I am prejudiced to believe that my removals will be omissions of fact. But, those are the rules of the game :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those books all failed but one La música en la Guerra Civil Española ISBN 9788486878207. It's in spanish and I am not a native Spanish speaker but I can see what I want. The SCW section in this article is tons too long. I want an independent tie-in between the SCW and Robeson. His self-published statement that the SCW was the turning point of his life - does not seem to be unique and looks to be true. I just want to find some author to nail that down. American library sources are lacking because it was the 1930s (depression and its recovery) and Robeson was in Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We charge genocide

It's in the contemporary Washington Afro-American newspaper. I think that's the name of the newspaper. "We charge genocide" is already mentioned in this article and it's mentioned by professional authors in their books. So it's coming into this article. The nice lil' thing in that article is that the newspaper article goes out of its way to mention that no other newspaper in the country covers Robeson delivering it to the U.N. I love when I can get an online bonus to the reader so they can check out the facts for themselves. That's my favorite ...professional author backing up online contemporary newspaper source. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema ranking in 1937

He was ranked 11-25 and 10th in British Cinema according to p. 18 of The Unknown 1930s ISBN 1860643035. I can't edit the article because the whole area around the SCW is kinda sloppy, but the fact is out there and that book was published in 1998 so its easy to get. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

everything between 1933 and 1938 is a complete disaster 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituals in Britain

I think its Nott who writes that Robeson's greatest contribution to the arts - in Britain - in the interwar era was the introduction singing of the spirituals on p. 171-172 ISBN 0199254079. Unfortunately, he does not explain why. He has no citations and a quick check of 7 books in his bibliography failed to produce a reason. It would look to go in the legacy section anyway. Looks like Britain needs a whole paragraph in legacy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

copy edit request

I requested copy edit for Chillun 1933 section. People write so phenomenally well on here it would save lots of time. I can't use the words "displayed" and "showed" in same sentence, "magnificent" is not really an encyclopedia word and "slave heritage" may need to be looked at - though I have to admit it's pretty darn compact at 2 words to explain his ancestry in the US. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleted_04132012

deleted, off topic:

The show trials that had occurred in the USSR in 1936 were seen, to no small extent, in Europe and the US as fair and brought to a proper conclusion because the defendants had publicly confessed.[1] Furthermore, European opinion was so strongly opposed to Fascism that it was virtually impossible to criticize the USSR because "Marxist" USSR was seen as diametrically opposed to Germany.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Robeson was one of the first actors of any race to demand (and receive) final cut approval on a film Song of Freedom (1936).{{citation needed|date=April 2012|reason=who cares}}

NO citation and one of the first is really bad. First ever is bad; One of the first is really bad - delete.

Post SCW

I agree w Robeson's self-published statements in Here I Stand. The SCW changed him. I think the article should flow easily between 1939 and 1948. It gets ugly between 1948 and 1952 because of contemporary politics, but it should get to 1948 quickly after the SCW. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1933-1939

I want to chop off 40% of the words in that area. I am going to put in Essie and Robeson's sending their son to school in Moscow as the keystone (turning point?) to his ideological transformation - although not naming it as a keystone. I honestly don't remember what year that was. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Eisenstein

I see someone brought in some stuff about Black Majesty. Books are out there about Eisenstein. I have not touched them yet. They have to be looked at. http://nypl.bibliocommons.com/search?t=smart&q=sergei%20eisenstein&commit=Search&searchOpt=catalogue The one written in 2008 has to be a must access read.

OTOH, I'll see if i can rope Proscript in. I don't like mentioning things if, as Proscript wrote: "nothing came of it."

We cannot afford to explain missed opportunities. He wanted to go to South Africa, but he never did. He wanted to return to Australia, but he never did. He wanted to be in Showboat in 1927, but he could not. The list is probably endless.

I mean this in the nicest way. But Robeson was world-class. He did not have an entire marketing team working for him. He had Essie and later his business manager also. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at user proscript's contributions. He has less than 500 edits so I can not/will not revert his addition to this article. I have invited him to reevaluate his addition to this article by pointing him to this section because it's a real bummer when someone reverts a good faith edit. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And more importantly, if user proscript has some knowledge of the Eisenstein-Robeson relationship, then it is greatly needed for this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested 2x user Proscript revert his edit. The 1933-1939 area in this article is a total disaster. It is way too long. I will revert his edit soon if he does not do it himself. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new stuff on wikipedia

i love the new "-312" stuff. My last edit deleted 312 bytes which I am very happy about.66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited and move to delete

"During the 1930s he met with African students in London, who urged him to travel to the USSR. Paul and Essie were named honorary members of the West African Students' Union in London, where they became good friends with future national presidents Kwame Nkrumah and Jomo Kenyatta."

target for deletion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of Comintern

BTW, i checked out a book called something like Music in the Soviet Union in the 1930s. The end result was, no, the Comintern did not in any way affect Robeson's decision to change the lyrics of Old Man River. To make a long story short, in April 1934 the Soviet Union, to some extent, institutionalized film making but Stalin was not able to significantly affect the music industry in the Soviet Union. So, the changing of the lyrics in Old Man River, I see no one, no entity, but Robeson involved in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lyrics was a bit of a no-brainer for someone who had become so politically committed. He did want to respond to his audiences' expectations. The Soviet authorities obviously approved. USSR tried to keep strict control over all cultural production, but we don't have to discuss that here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, settle down and don't go so fast. "He did want to respond to his audiences' expectations." If i remember correctly he was singing them in London and not in Wales (huge difference). I bring up your quoted statement because it implies he was "following" his audience and not "leading" his audience.

See Hopkins citation 157156: "Paul Robeson led...[t]his suggests a very different spirit...found a generation earlier ...[f]or those caught up in the passion play of Spain, and still eager to recapture lost ideological positions [songs] had become a battle cry."

See also B&B about the SCW being a cause celebre. I have looked with conviction to find evidence that Robeson was a leader in this regard to music, but I can not get any author to specifically say Robeson was a leader in this area.

There's some info missing in this article about his music in the 1930s (because some authors are complete knuckleheads and write Robeson sold 1.5 million copies by the 1930s - which I could not figure out if it was 1930 or 1939), but basically they write he sang "soft" music which equates to "pop" music, which is a heck of a lot different than battle hymns (see Hopkins cite 157 again). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that stands out about Robeson: football field -> was a leader, SCW -> evidence suggest he may have been a leader, and if you read Poitier's book -> thought himself a leader in the 40s and 50s. Now, where he led during the 40s and 50s would you want to follow is a totally different matter. But I am not in the 40s and 50s, I'm in the SCW. I did not list Poitier's book in further reading because the list is too long as it is.173.167.196.9 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I edit for a few hours I kinda get in a zone and think I own this article. I can't help that. But anything you do Judith to this article will only make it better! 173.167.196.9 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, if I don't like an edit I will start whining and move to revert it eventually. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game-changing

I am not like other wikipedia editors; I hate making section names. I however...love "Game-changing mainstream cultural perceptions". Game-changing is not even a word. But you need a new word for Robeson. The 1930s is a lot harder than the 1940s and 1950s. I was wrong. Oh well, I added 500bytes. But most are hidden comments that need to be fixed and delete. I think it's a little better. I'm happy.

1934 and 1935 has to be 2 paragraphs. Its 4 now. 2 - 5 sentence paragraphs. That's the target. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Majesty

This will be gone within 7 days:

"In 1935, despite talk of him making a film called Black Majesty in Russia with Eisenstein, nothing came of it.[148]"

I am tired of ..........nothing came of it. This is toast. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm X

Toast.

I do not care that Malcolm X wanted to meet him.

Toast.

I am tired of woulda coulda shoulda. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not think Malcolm X is in the same league as Robeson. Robeson was an immortal figure. Malcolm X was only legendary. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCW

It's going to get ugly. The key thing is he clearly left America behind. I really hate the author Stuckey, but the sob looks to be right. Robeson became a citizen of the world. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hidden comments removed

In essays such as I Want to be African,

66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing came of it

As an ip editor I can easily lose good faith 100 edits...you can not do this:

"In 1935, despite talk of him making a film called Black Majesty in Russia with Eisenstein, nothing came of it."

You can not associate Robeson with "nothing came of it." I don't wanna delete that edit but I have to. This dude is world class. You can't do woulda coulda shoulda. You can't do Malcolm X wanted to meet him. You can not do mickey mouse stuff w Robeson.

Eisenstein is a legendary figure. But not like this. This article needs to be shortened. I dont wanna hurt that editor. But Robeson is immensely complicated. No disrespect to the Malcolm X fans but this is the 1930s and people were getting lynched left and right. I don't care that Malcolm wanted to meet him. It has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Stop the name dropping. No mention of Malcolm belongs in this article. Maybe it belongs in the Malcolm X article, but not here....66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm editing again and would like to help again on this article. I tend to agree with you 66. IP on this one. This is only relevant if there is a lot more information about it, for example, if it is cited as a key event in Soviet history. If it is just a plan that was not pursued, then it isn't relevant. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Fix section titles please. I hate doing section title names. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological transformation (1933–1936)

I'm ok w the first 2 paragraphs as they stand now. The 3rd and 4th paragraphs need lots of work. If 3 paragraphs could be gotten for this section it would be great. The section title name is of course better left to more intelligent people to me. But I deleted 1400 bytes so I am happy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

Looks good...obviously needs work...but its not a disaster...I'll sleep easy66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showboat stuff uncited for 2 months deleted because no woulda coulda shoulda allowed; he either did something and it can go in the article or not; if he didnt then it cant

deleted: The show had premiered in New York in 1927, but Robeson had not been able to appear in it then because of schedule conflicts.{{citation needed|date=February 2012|reason=1) he had lots of aspirations that were not fulfilled almost to the point he was a b.s. artist, and 2)I am not looking up a citation for this because of 1) so if you want it in the article, then find a source 3)I am targeting it for deletion, 4) its not chronologically placed properly either}}

look here: cur | prev) 20:37, 21 April 2012‎ 66.234.33.8 (talk)‎ . . (131,090 bytes) (+174)‎ . . (sloppy, but facts and citation is there) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:17, 21 April 2012‎ 66.234.33.8 (talk)‎ . . (130,916 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎Secondary materials: put in book about to cite) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:58, 21 April 2012‎ 66.234.33.8 (talk)‎ . . (130,782 bytes) (-464)‎ . . (deleting showboat stuff; its not cited (even though i know where I can get a citation for it) but there is no woulda coulda shoulda stuff with Robeson; this article is too long already) (undo)

I got in a fact that he was the 10th most important figure in British Cinema and it cost me 300 bytes. The part about he coulda/woulda/shoulda appeared in the 1927 Show Boat cost 464 bytes and he didnt appear in it. That's a total waste of bytes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discography missing from this article

There should be a discography section. I don't know how I would do it but I'd cheat and combine Filmography and Discography into 1 section. Tracks were released in 2006 about PR's contributions to the SCW which include The Four Generals, The Peat-Bog Soldiers, and one other track. It's mentioned in La Música en la Guerra Civil Española ISBN 9788486878207. This book has to be looked at, especially, the conclusion. It's a serious book and some of the verbs are higher than 3rd grade level so I do not recognize them. That being said, earlier parts of the book use simpler language and do not bring anything new to Robeson's musical contribution in this period of history. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Filmography and discography or Discography and filmography. Either would be an appropriate section. I can probably read the Spanish if you want to paste any text from the conclusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1933-1936 or 1937 YAAAYYY

i am really happy i know the last 3 paragraphs of 1933-1936/1937 is really bad. i know it's 4th grade level. but i'm happy. I needed to skip to the substantiated quantitative fact that he was the 10th most popular in british cinema. I know, I did not mention that those were british films. Key thing is, Errol Flynn was like number 88 or 146 or something along those lines......Not even in the same league.66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

under construction is removed. I'm happy it is a good rough draft. Of course section title can be renamed. But on a scale of 1 to 10 its a rock solid 1 so i'll take it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Target for deletion: Paul Robeson at the FBI

I looked at the fbi files. There is nothing really there. Also, I believe I read a book at Schomburg about various personalities and the book had a chapter that covered Robeson, but there was just nothing in the book that was anyway useful to this article. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Robeson files at the FBI prior to 1945 are more in line with just Hoover just being a nut job. As far as Robeson Jr. and his thoughts on how the FBI treated his father - I have no comment at this time. I've done my research on Truman and I know personally what happens when a tire pops off because the lug nuts were loose. Bottom line is Paul Robeson Jr. is not a engineer and has no believable perspective of what happens when a tire comes off a car because the lug nuts on the tire were loose. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This target will go down very quickly. Within 3 days it will be deleted. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy in Great Britain or Introduction ( the intro/legacy is too US-centric)

  1. sold a million records by the 1930s <-we need an author to qualify that. I do not know what sold a million records by the 1930s means
  2. one of the most important figures of British cinema in the 1930s <- this is covered
  3. further introduction of the spirituals to Great Britain <- have author, but have no explanation why further introduction of the spirituals was important
  4. charitable events to aid the SCW, specifically the support of the legendary 4,000 Basque refugee children
  5. highlight racism that still existed in GB vis a vis the Savoy Incident. Maybe we can go right to the House of Commons (pseudo primary source) and back it up with Time of London online and professional authors.

That's a rock solid 5 sentences. That's a paragraph. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another target for deletion: See Also: The Communist Party USA and African Americans

  1. that article only has one citation; it can not be taken seriously yet (not a valid point)
  2. this article is remiss in not mention Ben Davis; that will be fixed soon
  3. the see also belongs in Paul Robeson Jr.'s article and not this article.

I will let it slide for now. But it's targeted. The bottom line is, if a reporter asks Robeson if he was a member of the CPUSA and he says no, and every author on this tiny blue planet says he was not a member of the CP, that in no way shape or form means you say, "Oh, maybe he was." It's ridiculous. That see also is not valid. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Communism is dead. The walls came crumbling down 15 years ago. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the facts with regard to Robeson and the CPUSA:

  1. the hearings in California Robeson appeared at have to be looked at

Here's the extremely important facts with regard to Robeson and the CPUSA:

  1. Robeson attended Ben Davis trial every day under intense scrutiny and never abandoned his friend, though this support reflected ill-repute on Robeson
  2. the Ben Davis trial was a landmark case in the United States
  3. the Ben Davis trial was the only landmark case in the history of the US not decided by the Supreme Court (long story)
  4. the Ben Davis trial was presided over by Judge Learned Hand
  5. Judge Learned Hand is seen by some authors as the best jurist in the history of the United States and he never became a Supreme Court justice
  6. the decision by Judge Hand is seen by some authors as controversial.

Hence, the term CPUSA will not escape this article.

I just looked for the first time. Wikipedia has Learned Hand as a featured article. Some of the best wikipedia editors edit law related articles. They are mind blowing good.

I of course like the fact/think that it is notable that he did not abandon Davis although Robeson had much to lose. All this ties in with "Gimme Light", "Old Man River" and Poitier's book. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


But it is NOT a See Also. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 02:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told ya

  1. I was right the outside in approach is much better
  2. I have authors with seemingly no connection to Robeson give me facts
  3. No claim can be made they are biased
  4. Hopkins, MacCambridge, Low, Curthoys, Von Eschen, Weisenfeld, Morrison, McConnell, Peterson, Richards, Lustiger, Rogovin, Snyder, etc.

Very happy about that. 23:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.196.9 (talk)

Judith can't we delete the young adult materials section please

Please can we delete the Young adult materials section. I mean the World Cat external link covers it. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say you are an adult because you want it left in. Bottom line a 9 year old could probably find these books online faster than you or I. This is a tremendous waste of bytes. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not aware, one of the children's books was burned, or thrown in the garbage, at a West Virginia library circa 1950. Now we can add a sentence, "This children's book, of which there would later be several, was burned at a West Virginia library in 195x because of Robeson's political stances." <-citation easily found. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that section is good to help teachers teach about Robeson. It's too specialized. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have really strong feelings about it. Thanks for asking, by the way. I just one slight niggle. What is a "Further reading" section for? Answer: for materials that we don't cite, but which might be useful to some readers. Well, books for young adults are more likely to be suitable for such a section than many other books. The Further reading section could do with a cull. Rigorously, for each one: is it good enough to cite, yes/no. And if not good enough to cite, why mention it at all? Do you see what I mean? Get back to me if you don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete/cull further reading, then just do it. When you edit the article under the edit summary just put "DELETING/CULLING Further reading per the talk page". Then I can go back in and dig up the books that I believe need to be looked at. I just bumped up Christy Walsh's book from further reading. The further reading section is not a fake list. That's a real list of books that need to be ascertained. But I know a little how to do history on an article. So that list will exist forever - It just won't spam the page, so if you want to delete it, then just do it. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it per your request. It's now in history. No big deal. I can retrieve what I want to look at when I have the time to look at it. That further reading, as it stood, was information overload.173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concussions

I am aware of recent events in the American football world. I have seen no written material by any author, contemporary or modern, that Robeson ever suffered from a concussion. I sadly have not been able to gather an account of every game he ever played; though I have tried. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Walsh book has been acquired

The whole area needs a major rewrite. But that is amazing sports history. Brown and Robeson, Jr. did not give this even due justice. This is just amazing sports history. I do not know whom was responsible for this. But I got all the names of all the newspapers (I let the sportswriters slide because they would be easy to dig up). They wiped him off the team. This is nothing short of amazing. There is still a contemporary battle with respect to morality, sports, and sports hall of fames, so there is no way this can be deleted from this article. It's just amazing. Other editors I am sure not aware that there was a gigantic public relations battle around 1950 between the NFL and college football. In fact this battle had been going on since about 1916. This is just amazing.

OTOH, the other later stuff in the article about films and musical recordings being wiped out is not encyclopedic in nature and is targeted for deletion. I am not in that area so I see no reason to delete it at this time. If someone is partial to Robeson, gimme a hint, which film, which recording, who was the deleter. If I get a hint, I'll start digging. Otherwise, it's targeted for deletion.

Overall, I am absolutely ecstatic to have accessed the book at the U of Maryland archive section of their library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.196.9 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is other stuff missing in this article I believe. About his picture being taken down at Rutgers and whom was responsible for getting in the College Hall of Fame, etc. I am not in that area. Furthermore, whom is actually responsible for Robeson not being in the book also. Clearly, the publisher and Walsh were involved because it is inescapable to write in a book that Rutgers had 2 all americans and then only list 1. So the target now shifts to McCoy. The newspapers reviewing the book prolly cant receive any blame. The book is hundreds of pages long and at times uses a type 6 font and anyone/everyone would prolly miss Robeson not being in the book.
That being said, history has been restored.173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every back issue of the Daily Targum now needs to be acquired. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"To exploit the past is the historian's loss."173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this article: "Due to Robeson's lengthy and extensive blacklisting during the 1950s, his long career and achievements are difficult to find in most American mainstream interpretations of history, including in-depth books on sports history, entertainment, civil rights and black history. In the US very little newsreel footage of Robeson now exists, even in the Library of Congress, as the majority of US newsreel footage has been either destroyed or has had the sound erased."
This is not encyclopedic in nature. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this article: "Due to his blacklisting within the mainstream media, the concert stage, theater, radio, film and the civil rights movement, Robeson became an outcast, very nearly a nonperson."
this is 7 years after the fact he became, not "nearly a non-person" but a non-person.173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title sections need fixing

Someone fix the title section names please. I hate doing that. I'll try doing it tomorrow. The ugliest is Events. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mosell, Poitier, Malcolm X

None of that stuff belongs in this article. If they liked him, if they respected him, if they were related to them, then put it in that article. I have no idea about this new Moselle contribution, she/he could be the most wonderful person in the world, but Robeson did in no way shape of form respect the Moselle family - according to sources. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. The editor that made that edit is new. I apologized. The edit is now protected. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new editor did not respond. It's tangential. It's deleted. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson a "dupe" during the SCW.

It's covered by George Orwell. Stalin ordered hits on everyone that was not completely loyal to the USSR party line, according to all evidence. Robeson has to pay the piper on this. How much should Robeson pay the piper for being ignorant to the extent of what a mass murderer Stalin was...goodness I don't know. What did he know, what should he have known. I don't know. The purges of 1937 are different - Robeson had no chance of knowing, IMHO. I'm not giving Robeson a pass on this. He entered into International Relations so he should have put on his helmet first. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. No one wrote about it. No one questioned him about it. It's not possible to assault Robeson b4 circa 1946. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Man River

I will be wiping out the exact change in lyrics to Old Man River. I will change it to: he made it a battle hymn. It's just massive overkill. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Robeson archives

Someone needs to check if the Paul Robeson archives are still at Howard University. The Howard University website about Paul Robeson is an absolute, total joke. Every link on it's page is broken. It's embarrassing. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fake citations

The edits I made utilize fake citations cause I don't have the books in front of me. There is no one editing this article SO I will deal with the citations later. Everything in the 1930s is a disaster.

  1. The Savoy incident has to come in because
  2. that explains why he sent his son to school in Russia and
  3. one of the Lincoln Center authors (a book in that library) says that Robeson drawing attention to racism that still existed in England is part of his legacy. Since that author in no way can be considered pro or anti-Robeson, then I am forced to believe him.
  4. and oh yes, Robeson singing the spirituals is from the same author and also must be considered part of his legacy, and lastly
  5. btw, him having a bldg named from him at SOAS is NOT legacy - that's a joke - you'll have to go to the dedication and see if they say something like "Robeson's interest in learning and understanding other cultures is why we named this building for him." If that statement can not be produced at the dedication then the SOAS stuff is absolute junk and does not belong in this article. Legacy is not buildings or schools or pictures on dollar bills. Robeson changed the culture of England over the Savoy incident so I don't want mickey mouse SOAS garbage in this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "a battle hymn of unwavering defiance" utilizes a fake citation. I think it's common sense and it's drawn from Hopkins. I am not removing it. If you think it's too much original research, then put back the exact change in the lyrics. I am not going to remove the citation. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1930s

Its a rough draft. It's the best I can do. I hope some day some editor comes along and makes it better. I think up to 1932 its a good article, after that it degrades quickly to at best a solid C. All I can do is my best.66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like this and will delete

Due to Robeson's lengthy and extensive blacklisting during the 1950s, his long career and achievements are difficult to find in most American mainstream interpretations of history, including in-depth books on sports history, entertainment, civil rights and black history. In the US very little newsreel footage of Robeson now exists, even in the Library of Congress, as the majority of US newsreel footage has been either destroyed or has had the sound erased.

Someone needs to explain why this belongs in this article. You do not have much time. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

post 1930s

I'm running out of gas. I hope someone picks up the article. It should be an easy run to 1948. Just in the 1939-1946, please, please do not use Duberman.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why I have a grip w McCullough over his biography of Truman. Biographies of presidents are a different ballgame and a biography of Truman on wikipedia should be much harder to do than this, though this article has a very diverse selection of sources - which I am of course very proud of. This article is going to get bloody after 1946 and will require an extremely skilled editor. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block quote: the artist must take sides

I hate reading wikipedia articles that have lots of quotes and block quotes in the middle of a section destroy reading the entire section. The "artist must take sides" goes at the end of the SCW simply because it is more readable that way. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "defiant caveat" in Legacy, pfft, deal with it later. It looks like the artist must take sides goes in the SCW section and not in the legacy section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stein, Truman, Malcolm X, Eisenhower, Davis, McKay

I am not classifying them in this article. That's the job of the editors of those wikipedia articles. I know nothing of Stein or McKay. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best diction Broadway Othello

It's mickey mouse stuff. i deleted it. I don't wanna waste they bytes on "best diction". 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was a wonderful play. But goodness gracious I have Eisenhower basically calling Robeson either "very stupid or very dangerous". I have a POTUS calling Robeson out and this article has stuff about "best diction". Um, who cares! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I do not care what everyone thinks about Robeson. I only care what is historically significant. Best diction is a complete joke. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest interpretation of Shakespear in the 20th Century -> Robeson in London

After months of sitting on it cause of hagiography and bytes, but I will allow it. Read the online article for yourself. I would say that Morrison's view of Robeson's acting was neutral to favorable. I guess we'll just have to wait until his book comes out. I inserted the word British in his quote and consequently toned down Morrison, but Morrison could actually mean the best interpretation of Shakespeare in the world in the 20th Century. No great loss, I am sure that British Shakespearean actors might say American Shakespeare don't count. 66.234.33.8 (talk) _Robeson_in_London" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">21:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World class athletes

They have the ability to ignore criticism. So "marshaled on" stays. That's easy to cit. That will be Duberman. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New book: Preston

We can find out why Robeson suddenly became involved in politics and avoid original research. Um, Boyle and Bunie is an old book too. Catherine and I were wrong - Duberman, B&B are not bad authors - they are just outdated.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7 bytes at a time

We will get this puppy below 100k. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not all edits were good...but i'm happy there's some "new" books. "i saw spain die", preston, and one book from 1966. check nypl.org. i'm a lil tied up now. but i'm dying to get the spain stuff. preston's holocaust book basically shuts down any anti-Robeson stuff. and Preston is a total powerhouse and it is hot off the presses ->2012. So that's really cool. And the wikipedia scw folks don't have it it the game yet. So that's cool too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

I think Filmography is dated on Wikipedia. I want the whole section wiped out. Filmography is a main stay of Wikipedia articles nowadays. But, if you like Filmography, then you have to put Discography in the article. I prefer to include neither of them nor the Young Adult Materials section. Worldcat will give us everything we want in that department. IMHO, 10 years from now, no one will be putting Filmography, Young Adult Materials, nor Discography as sections in their Wikipedia articles; they are superfluous. However, a real Further reading section is required in this article. The one i implemented was "books an editor (that would be me) should have to read to learn about Robeson and his time period."

Purges

Robeson was a big fan of the purges and has been criticized for it, why no mention? AJCohn (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly a fan of the purges. A fan of the trials, yes. Do not say Robeson was a fan of Stalin killing hundreds of thousands of people, that is not fair because he did not know about that at the time in the 1930s. The "I think they all should be shot" or whatever he said is fair game - so if you want put it in. Generally speaking, no1 but no1 outside the USSR knew Uncle Joe (the WWII term in the US) for Stalin was a mind boggling mass murderer. See the comments by the US ambassador to the USSR in the 1940. And keep the 1930s away from the 1950s. When Khruschev promulgated what Stalin had done.......that is a totally different ballgame. Robeson has to answer for that, but in the 1950s section and not the 1930s section. Please see Rogovin's book. Don't do 20-20 hindsight on Robeson in the 1930s.
And btw thanks for the edits in the introduction. I hate editing the introduction or legacy until the article is completely researched. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And also, btw, I see you are involved in the Smith Trial. I would love to bring Buckley into this article. Buckley wrote some stuff about the Smith trial which is tangential to this article, but Buckley was just too darn young at the time to bring into this article. Until the late 1960s, Buckley is just too darn young to use a critic of Robeson.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you go back several thousand edits, you will see I was editing the Great Purges and the Moscow Trials articles. So I did do some research in that area. Generally speaking, it would be a long hard road to criticize Robeson in the 1930s. But I could always be wrong :), do the research; I am certainly not infallible. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And if you bring in he was in favor of the the Moscow Trials executions, I will counter with the undeniable fact that every member of the media and every ambassador from every country in the world believed the trials to be fair....There is only on person who knew they were unfair, and that was Trotsky. That's cause Trotsky was a "would be", or arguably a, mass murderer himself.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with it being in the article. But if memory serves me right, his comment only was reported in the Daily Worker and there was no mention of it otherwise. Also, I don't know when his comment became famous, but I think it was years later. Generally, context has to be provided in any statement he made, otherwise it's tabloid material. So, happy editing.66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was only reported originally in the DW, but a number of subsequent commenters have cited it as an example of his slave like devotion to Stalin. As for "every member of the media and every ambassador from every country in the world believed the trials to be fair", well thats just nonsense. AJCohn (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have 7 days b4 I wipe out the Filmography section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I'm not messing with stuff outside of my realm. I just need to be patient. If I see this article finished, then and only then will I do stuff like wipe out Young adult books and filmography. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the introduction

The introduction should be ambiguous unless it is guaranteed that you can cite 1st or 2nd or whatever quantitative numbers you want. I have to go back and edit some stuff. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the first sentence of this article is a major no-no. Generally speaking, the introduction and legacy belongs to the editor who has done the most work. At this time, that is me. Saying Paul Robeson was a communist in the first sentence of the article is blatantly false. His son was a Communist, W. E. B. DuBois became a Communist, but Robeson was never a member of the Communist party. I am not editing the intro, per se, but if you want to edit the intro, please edit all of the 1940s and 1950s first.66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am kinda indifferent to this article, I have no stake in it or any like it, but to the above poster, WP:OWN? Just sayin.Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Um, I was being nice. The editor vandalized the article. I assume good faith. It's a long story but this article has been besieged for years over people claiming Robeson was a Communist. I am being nice. The editor destroyed the intro. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not vandalize anything, and your insistence that this belongs to you flies in the face of Wikipedia’s mission statement. AJCohn (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And b4 ur statement I looked, his edits are politicized and he is writing things without any citations. I don't get upset. 49.9999% of my edits are terrible and I go back in and delete time. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But i have accessed closed to 50-60 books and driven hundreds of miles to just get one book on Robeson. I guess it just falls back on my criticism of Duberman, yeah he was a terrible author but he made it better for others that followed, and I am a terrible editor, hopefully I will make it better for other editors that follow. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a better man than I. Keep up the good work. That's why I stick to noncontroversial subjects like roads and bridges. All I know about Robeson is he left the US and moved to the USSR, I thought due to racism. I have yet to actually read the article, I just stumbled on your comment on RC patrol. You are a very experienced editor and do good work. Just that remarks like that can get you in trouble. Maybe you should take a break from Robeson for a while? BTW, I can relate to your info access problem. I formally lived in a college town in the midwest and now I live in a very small town in the west. It is a pain getting decent reference material. The closest decent library is 60 miles away and I don't drive! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson was not only a communist, but he was a party member, Gus Hall confirmed this at postumous brithday event for Robeson where Hall said his "own most precious moments with Paul were when I met with him to accept his dues and renew his yearly membership in the CPUSA". AJCohn (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gus Hall was a liar. No reliable source has been able to confirm the long-standing allegations that Robeson was a communist; on the contrary, they say he was not a communist. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So there are no "reliable sources" indicating Robeson was a communist? Care to place a wager on that? AJCohn (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll bet the lede of the article on it. Until you produce reliable sources, leave it alone. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And "socialist" is no better than "communist" in the absence of reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so how many of these "reliable source" do we need to characterize Robeson as a communist? AJCohn (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Considering how many sources say otherwise, I would think you need more than one or two. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So the People's Weekly World from March 21, 1998 where old time CP leaders admit that Robeson was a secret part member isnt sufficient enough a source, even when other scholars have used it? AJCohn (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a primary source to me, and a self-serving one at that. If scholars have used it, why not cite them? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, if the PWW qualifies as a primary source, doesn’t Robeson Jr as well? Two of the most eminent scholars on American Communism John Earl Haynes an Harvey Klehr found the PWW article in conjunction with all the circumstantial information more than enough to classify Robeson as a secret Party member. AJCohn (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction citations and edits

I am not permitting them. If you want to implement a citation in the introduction, then please come to the talk page. I will revert any edit that puts a citation in the the introduction unless I see it discussed on the talk page first. I do not take ownership of this article, but I only become caretaker of this article. If anyone edits the introduction, then they should have a reason for it and explain it on the talk page first. This is a controversial subject, so an editor must explain their rationale for editing the introduction. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is, other than the introduction, wide open. Please fee free to edit the article, especially in the 1940s and the 1950s. If you edit the article that pertains to the 1920s or 1930s, then I will most assuredly closely watch it like a hawk. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should all bear in mind the criteria for good article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin Peace Prize

Why is there no mention in the article that Robeson was awarded the Stalin Peace prize (a more Orwellian name, I couldnt imagine). AJCohn (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1952, Robeson was awarded the International Stalin Prize by the USSR.[216]" — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil rights

How can Robeson be objectively described as an advocate for “civil rights” when he convinced a large group meeting to discuss the upcoming Smith Trials that members of the Socialist Workers Party should be cut loose from the defense and not supported because they were ”allies of fascism” and kin to the Klan … doesn’t sound very principled to me. AJCohn (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What may or may not sound 'principled' to you isn't really relevant. Our job as wikipedia contributors is not to pass judgment on our subjects, but to write solid encyclopedic entries on them that responsibly use the best sources available. The relevant policies on this would be WP:RS and WP:OR, among others. Sindinero (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a number of authors and commentator have noted this instance … that’s the only reason I am aware of it.
I remember the tears began to quietly flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly - I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good - the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. Robeson recalling an episode in 1937 when he saw Stalin at the Bolshoi Theater
Is it me, or does Robeson sound a little like Winston Smith at the end of 1984? Remember one of the last scenes in the book where Smith after all the torture and programming, Smith cried tears of genuine tenderness when he saw the news bulletin reporting Oceania's decisive victory? AJCohn (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing a change to this article? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the inclusion of additional material that observers have cited as undermining Robeson's claims that he was a non partisan human rights activist. The preponderance of evidence points to him being a die hard Stalinist/Soviet apologist. AJCohn (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a good start. [1]. Coomentary magazine has a number of excelent essays as well. AJCohn (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains that you cannot assume a logical contradiction between Robeson's positive view of Stalin and the fact that he was an advocate for civil rights in the US. It's a complex history, and such glib oversimplifications do it little justice. Under wikipedia policy, there's no way that you can really "undermine" claims made by the subject of an article; that's original research. If you find a reliable source that challenges Robeson's civil rights advocacy on the grounds of his alleged support for Stalin, this can be included -- as a claim that a given scholar has made, but not as a definitive judgment of Robeson. Does that make sense? Sindinero (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Politics source you cited is an opinion essay and not usable as a source in this article. See our key guideline WP:IRS (and WP:HISTRS is also relevant). The quotation from James Baldwin might be worth including, if there is a reliable source for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that opinion pieces are not reliable sources for biographies when the subject is still alive, but Robeson is long dead and this doesnt seem to apply here. AJCohn (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces aren't very useful for any topic. Here, the way forward is to remember that we need to present the facts so that readers can make up their own minds. Whatever our own personal opinions, we can work together to get a completely neutral article. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article now hagigraphical?

Because AJCohn, it is best to tackle the easiest stuff first and the easiest stuff is to produce an article that is , or, could be considered to be hagiography. The articles is not finished and is at best a junk article, you have plenty of time to attack it, but please not now. You need to let the fight over whether this article is hagiography go for now. The 1940s and 1950s are wide open. Put citations in there and attack Robeson - there is no one stopping you. I am not against any statement in the introduction that he never wavered from supported Stalin, if and only if, a citation existed in the body of the article to support that. But that is not his legacy.

After reading about Robeson, for so long, I have, I think, finally figured out why he did what he did. That being said, I can't explain it because you folks will have to figure it out....You are missing a key book in this article that brings everything home. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robeson has been dead for 50 years and communism has been dead for 30 years. There is no reason to get upset over this article.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No sources ehhh?
Might Robeson have felt betrayed by the Soviet Union, particularly after Khrushchev's revelations and the invasion of Hungary in 1956? Having never denounced Stalin, did Robeson inhabit Othello's line “one that loved not wisely but too well”? Robeson’s actions in the late 1950’s did not demonstrate a sense of betrayal as he remained a frequent visitor to the Soviet Union once his passport was restored” - The Politics of Paul Robeson's Othello - Page 165 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJCohn (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Intro for AJ

I think everyone looks forward to you edits. But I suggest some revisions with respect to the intro, although I grant you the intro is primarily a work in progress:

  1. "The name is pronounced in two syllables only" <- there is no need for that footnote
  2. "notable participant" <- redundant; the article would not exist if he was not notable
  3. "and socialist" ...I will allow that for now. It his not supported in the body of the article anywhere. But I will let it slide
  4. "He gained notoriety"...I will let it slide for now, but it does not belong in the 1st paragraph
  5. "His Communist affiliations as well as his outspoken support for the Soviet Union and its leader Joseph Stalin at the outset of the Cold War brought scrutiny from the American government." Total delete, no punctuation, too much venom. No support whatsover in the body of the article.
  6. Yours is better: Mine: :"with ongoing severe health problems well into the 1960s virtually destroyed his health" ...."took its toll on his health health." minor typo in your edit
  7. Ughh, why do you want to go near the introduction. It's an absolute disaster.

Edit the 1940s and 1950s, the introduction is a disaster. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Please edit the 1940s and 1950s sections in the first instance. It is always better to write the introduction afterwards. An introduction should just be a summary of material that is sourced in the main body. You might also want to look at some featured articles on controversial figures, to see how the different points of view are handled. Robeson's life was long and complicated. A good comparison figure is John Lennon, who was also a great musician, also willing to state unpopular political viewpoints, and was adored by some and loathed by others. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Itsmejudith ... ahh, I see. I edit the body so the head can flow with it. AJCohn (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I see no way to attack Robeson in the 1930s in this article

I wish I could, but I can not find any way to attack him. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "attacking" anyone, just providing a balanced presentation of the subject. AJCohn (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a visit to Moscow, Robeson’s brother in law John Goode told him that the NKVD had arrested his roommate Arthur Talent, the American born son of CPUSA die hards, on suspicions of espionage. Along with Talents confession, the NKVD beat the names of three other “spies” out of him, including Robeson’s brother in law John Goode. Knowing he was going to be arrested, tortured and executed like Talent was, Goode asked Robeson if there was anything he could do to help him.

On May 10, 1936, Paul Robeson had given an interview to Ben Davis Jr of the Sunday Worker describing a visit he had made to the apartment of this brother in law John Goode: While in the Soviet Union I made it a point to visit some of the workers homes … and I saw for myself. They all live in healthful surroundings, apartments, with nurseries contain the most modern equipment for their children. Besides, they were still building. I certainly wish the workers in this country – and especially the Negroes in Harlem and the South – had such places to stay in. I visited the home of my brother in law, his apartment had plenty of light, fresh air and space. Believe me. He is very happy. John Goode was a mechanic and bus driver living in Moscow whose existence Robeson was careful to publicize. What Robeson never mentioned in any interview was how he helped to engineer Goode’s escape from Ruyssia at the end of his concert tour. His brother in law fled with just one suitcase to add credence to their story that he was just taking a short vacation outside the USSR. And by means of this subterfuge, Jon Goode’s life was saved from the NKVD decree of February 19, 1938, ordering his arrest. But if any of the young American baseball players of Moscow were hoping for a similar intercession by Robeson on their behalf, they were to wait in vain. There is no record of any statement made by the honorary catcher of the Moscow Foreign Worker’s baseball team in support of his young American Friends. Nor did Robeson make any attempt to denounce the Terror, which he knew was taking place in the Soviet Union. The most famous bass voice in the world had fallen unaccountably silent. The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia

-
This may or may not be an "attack", but the author certainly found it noteworthy and indicative of Robeson's character. Its a story similar to Feffer in which Robeson realizes what’s really going on in Stalin's Soviet Union, does what he can for the individual he has some personal attachment to, but keeps his lips sealed about the incident when he’s back in the West and goes on to denounce the reports of abuse as lies and propaganda. AJCohn (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. Quoting a book is a good step up from a political screed, but books by historians are preferable to books by film-makers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What Robeson never mentioned in any interview was how he helped to engineer Goode’s escape from Ruyssia at the end of his concert tour. His brother in law fled with just one suitcase to add credence to their story that he was just taking a short vacation outside the USSR. And by means of this subterfuge, Jon Goode’s life was saved from the NKVD decree of February 19, 1938, ordering his arrest. But if any of the young American baseball players of Moscow were hoping for a similar intercession by Robeson on their behalf, they were to wait in vain. There is no record of any statement made by the honorary catcher of the Moscow Foreign Worker’s baseball team in support of his young American Friends. Nor did Robeson make any attempt to denounce the Terror, which he knew was taking place in the Soviet Union. The most famous bass voice in the world had fallen unaccountably silent."
All true from my recollection and supported by other sources, maybe a little out of context. Now explain why that Robeson was silent :) !!!! If you are knowledgeable about Ben Davis then read about Scottsboro and see what Robeson said about Ben Davis and the Scottsboro boys and their fate. :) I think I read his book, great book. I think that guy has 3 relevant books, good research.
Please explain to me why Robeson did what he did in the 1940s and 1950s?
In the Feffer affair, he abandoned a friend - which I view as disgraceful and which he did not repeat with Davis during the Smith trial. The Feffer affair is extremely significant because Feffer was a spy for the NKVD - as I believe I have annotated in this article. Robeson could have been subject to blackmail by the NKVD over his friendship with Feffer. That's really where the whole Duberman quest to discern if Robeson was a bisexual comes about because of the Wall Street Journal writer that covered the USSR who had a homosexual affair and was then attempted to be blackmailed by the NKVD. Laugh, Robeson be blackmailed by anyone? I don't think so.
I do respectfully believe his source is valid. I agree with it. Whether it is context is a another matter altogether. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read that book; its at 40th and 5th. There is a problem with his rendition of events. I don't remember what it is. But I still hold fast that there is no way to attack Robeson in the 1930s. I am sorry. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I remember, "Nor did Robeson make any attempt to denounce the Terror, which he knew was taking place in the Soviet Union." The purges of 1937 were unknown to the world. Even the the US ambassador to the USSR was highly complimentary of Stalin as late as 1940. You are still dealing with good olde "Uncle Joe" Stalin in films mass produced in the US during WWII. The author's statement is way out of context. And it is not fair. I have attacked Robeson during the Great Depression and over Feffer (which is borderline original research, but is really common sense). You can not attack Robeson over the Great Purge. If you want to attack something over it, then attack the press. Nowadays, the New York Times have been attacked over its coverage - which is not fair, because the NYT was a mickey mouse paper in the 1930s. I see no way to attack Robeson in the 1930s in this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiography that is missing in this article, and the complaint is correct; this article is somewhat hagiographical

The hagiographical stuff is easy to find. Yuck. But what is missing is:

  1. The CAA was the most significant aid organization to Africa of its time, bar none.
  2. Robeson helped to chang the culture of Great Britain by illustrating extant racism in the country.
  3. The Othello which Robeson portrayed in London in the 1930s was the high water mark of Shakespearean theatre.
  4. Robeson performance of the spirtuals in GB had a profound effect on the development of music in GB.

All citeable. It's just not the right time to introduce it or I just do not have the time to look up the page numbers.

But yeah, some of the stuff in this article needs to be deleted.


I absolutely hate this. It's so way overboard:
"Due to Robeson's lengthy and extensive blacklisting during the 1950s, his long career and achievements are difficult to find in most American mainstream interpretations of history, including in-depth books on sports history, entertainment, civil rights and black history. In the US very little newsreel footage of Robeson now exists, even in the Library of Congress, as the majority of US newsreel footage has been either destroyed or has had the sound erased." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Legacy is junk. I mean really. Robeson got a building named after him at SOAS, um, who cares. He received an honorary doctorate degree in East Germany - umm, this is garbage... The key thing is to understand why Robeson made the choices that he made. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rogovin revert by AJCohn accepted

I accept AJCohn's revert of my edit; it was sloppy about "Robeson, blah blah, mimicked". But it was truthful. Um, I am on a steep learning curve. My statement was accurate, I could rephrase it by using a compound sentence. But everything after 1932 is still a blur. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now this, is hagiography

"In multiple areas of American life, Robeson demonstrated his ability to achieve in the largest competitions. He dominated in academics, in sports, in singing and in acting, both in person and on screen. Not content with that, he demanded attention for his views on civil rights in America, Australia and South Africa, the labor movement,[294][295] religious liberty for Jews and others and the dangers of Fascism. These achievements were unparalleled in American life, and were all the more incredible given the barriers of racism that he had to surmount.[296]

Robeson brought Negro spirituals into the center of the American songbook and his renditions remain the standard for all later singers. This was just part of his rejection of the notion that African-American culture was anything but a treasure for all people."

His legacy is abstract. His legacy is:

  1. he helped change the culture of Great Britain by assisting in realizing there was extant racism in the country
  2. he further emphasized the importance of Spirituals by his renditions in Great Britain (Umm, I am not knowledgeable on music at all, but apparently one author contends that Robeson's spiirtuals had a dramatic effect on music in Great Britain - and not in the US as the aforementioned authoreditor intimates)

Umm, I have not delved into the Jewish question because it is too volatile and the Holocaust ...I don't know....I am not convinceconvinced that Robeson was just a wonderful, great friend of the Jewish people. I am sorry. I have thought about that alot.

But I am not reverting that edit. I think it's ugly though. No disrespect. (This is completely bogus: "Not content with that"), Are you a mindreader??? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jack a citation need on "Not content with that", Goodness now everything is coming out of the woodwork. Well, now we can see the pro and anti Robeson forces first hand. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness I am not emotionally involved in this article.

The pro and anti Robeson forces seem to be in battle. Have fun. I'm not getting involved. You guys should check your emotions at wikipedia.org. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood (1898-1915)

Look at the bytes here: "Maria was from a prominent, black, Quaker family of mixed ancestry: African, Anglo-American, and Lenape.[4] William was born a slave but escaped from a plantation in his teens.[5] William then served in an honorable, yet not formally inducted, capacity with the Union Army during the American Civil War.[6] Post-bellum, he earned a degree from Lincoln University and became a minister of Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church in Princeton in 1881."

How about chop it down to: His father was "became the minister of Witherspoon Street Presbyterian Church in Princeton in 1881." Yeah, I think that's correct. Way too many bytes wasted there. It's off topic. I'll let it slide for now, but it is clearly off topic. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too many bytes: "then served in an honorable, yet not formally inducted, capacity with the [[Union Army]] during the [[American Civil War]].<ref>Brown: 12-13, 167; cf. Boyle and Bunie: 5, Robeson, 2001: 4.</ref> Post-bellum, he earned a degree from [[Lincoln University (Pennsylvania)|Lincoln University]] and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His spouse

You can put who Robeson's spouse was in an infobox, if you like. But I will not allow an edit to use the term spouse in the body of the article. I am really sorry. The strangest thing about Paul Robeson Jr.'s book that I may have inaccurately comprehended is that he did not like his mother. I can not figure it out. But the term "spouse" does not exist in FA Malcolm X, GA Abraham Lincoln, or GA George Washington. The term spouse in the body of the article is a no go. I did toy with the words "his wife" as compared to "Essie" but Essie was 3 bytes shorter (if his wife was shorter I would have use it) - that's the honest truth - but, spouse is a no go. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely, extremely pro-biased Essie.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction by itsmejudith

Don't take it personal. I have over 1k edits in this article. By and large 950 of them were junk. But if you make a statement in the intro, it has to be supported in the body of the article with a citation. Those are the rules of the game. Your statement is non-existent in the article with a citation. Furthermore, a 2 sentence open introductory paragraph is a major no-go. It has to be 3 sentences at the very least and should be 4, if not 5. I'm not going to complain because it's wonderful to have you back editing while I really can not afford to edit now. Best of luck with this article, but please follow the rules to the game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Snyder: 74; contra: Boyle and Bunie: 366; Boyle and Bunie imply that Robeson's inability to discern the trials were fair was a failing on his part when they write: "Although not one piece of material evidence was produced at the trials, all but one of the prisoners publicly confessed their guilt in court, and all were shot...Robeson, like most Western observers, knew of the trials. [A]surprising number of foreign journalists and diplomats concluded that on the whole the trials were conducted fairly. From his film experiences, Robeson knew better than most how easily words, images, and even truthful facts could be manipulated to create what amounted to lies."
  2. ^ Snyder: 74
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Robeson&oldid=494237543"