Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Brick Wall; 1934-1939

I am going to run into a brick wall between 1934-1939. I know nothing about that era. I can not really depend on any sources but Robeson 2001 and B&B 2001, but that's not really enuf to keep the ball rolling. So, Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, so I hope someone jumps in :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Francis C. Harris

"Sports historian Francis C. Harris wrote that Robeson "...established a level of excellence as a scholar-athlete that few others, if any, have ever attained."<ref>Harris 1998: 47</ref> I never heard of the guy. I removed it from Legacy section and folded it into Rutgers section as a cf. It is not important enough to be in the legacy section. Legacy section is for biographers and world class authors to argue about his life. I personally do not think it's important that he excelled in college, I think it's actually more important that he got into Rutgers then excelling at Rutgers once he was there.

Consequently, deleted from Legacy section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Truman's ostracism of Robeson

It's in one of Horne's book. Truman had a conversation with (I think) White in (I think) 1947 and Truman questioned White what would the African American population do if the United States Government. White's response was basically nothing. Using my bad memory from reading the book yesterday, a quid pro quo was established between the Truman Administration and the NAACP with Robeson being thrown under the bus. The point is: the point by point list of circumstantial evidence in this article that the U.S. Government and the FBI was out to get Robeson is overkill. We got a direct link to the President of the United States. Once that link is established and cited, then the point by point list can be deleted, except when its fun and interesting stuff. As an example, the Chinese dictionary being stolen is completely insignificant insignificant and extremely boring. Goldstein delivers Eisenhower and Horne delivers Truman. This hopefully will wipe out 5,000 bytes at least. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted- boring

In 1942 when he was studying Chinese, the FBI stole one of his Chinese notebooks and had it translated to ascertain whether or not it contained an encoded message related to his involvement, if any, with the CPUSA.<ref>{{citation | contribution = Paul Robeson Sr., Part 1 of 31 | title = FBI Records: The Vault | pages = 8–10| id = | contribution-url = http://vault.fbi.gov/Paul%20Robeson%2C%20Sr./Paul%20Robeson%2C%20Sr.%20Part%201%20of%2031/view | accessdate = 2011-11-07}}</ref>

Naison

Naison does not use inline citations in his highly acclaimed book, Communists in Harlem during the Depression (The title is a misnomer). Consequently one of his statements I want is backed up by at least 1 of 3 sources. 1 of his sources is (I think) Virginia Hamilton, who wrote a children's biography of Robeson. Since he is an extremely serious historian, then I think it's fair game and I will trust that he corroborated what he wrote; but I wish he handled it better 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, I'll track it down. Hamilton I bet got it from Huggins. I'll revisit Huggins' book Harlem Renaissance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Horne v. Duberman

Duberman writes what Robeson did. Horne writes what Robeson did affected the world. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

jackie robinson v. paul robeson articles

This article is about 50% longer than the featured article on Jackie Robinson. A lot has to be deleted in this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

I take no enjoyment in deleting other people's work. But this article needs to get down to about 110k. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Biographers and critics on his life

I only see 4 authors: Duberman, Robeson Jr., Hoyt, and Gilliam. These are the go to guys on evaluating his life. Other authors that only chronicle part of his life or other authors that presage his return of his passport in 1958 do not count, in my mind. I am not going to let those guys monopolize the critique of his life, but they are the scholarly biographers. The fact that Robeson Jr. is biased is not a big deal; I'm biased too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My bias is different than any other authors - which I will never put in the article - it's just he reached a point where he just decided to fight back (but I hate that kind of half baked sophomoric analysis gibberish)66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

New Chronological structure

It is not perfected but the events of his life are now more or less all in order with some necessary additions still to go such as later concert tours, the announcement of "no more tours for a few years so I can get to the rank and file struggle of my people" and a clearer picture of his popularity aboard etc plus more historical background as suggested by Judith. Looks much better all in proper order.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2011‎ (UTC)

Welsh miners

It appears to be all true based on contemporary news accounts:

1. it was in 1929, like Robeson Jr. says
2. the miners had not eaten for days, like Robeson Jr. says
3. Robeson singing Ol Man River like Robeson Jr. seems okay and not worth trying to corroborate
4. There was a relief fund organized, called the "Mayors....Relief Fund" (I can not find the link again) which seems to suggest Robeson Jr. exaggerated when he writes his father organized a relief fund.
5. other stuff Robeson Jr. lists are prolly impossible to corroborate and are too detailed anyway
6. Not included but listed in contemporary news accounts were the South Wales area was extremely pro-Communist

Generally that area needs corroboration and an authored book, or at least the Guardian or Times of London to chime in.

This website Coalfield Web Materials points out Robeson became involved in 1928 during a hunger march, which has no corroboration from any source I can find in the last few hours, and even conflicts with another one of that domains websites Timeline. Those websites are too sloppy to use unless something else is backing it up. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I found here that there was a national hunger march in March 1929. I assume that marchers came from various directions to London. Generally, the idea was that they would be fed and sheltered by supporters along the way. They should not have arrived in London hungry. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That source said March 1929, this one says January. Possibly it started in January, ended in March. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'll explain. But let me store this here for now: Sometime in the winter of 1928-1929, a group of miners from [[South Wales]], sources being unclear if they were part of the Second National Hunger Strike who were in London to call attention to the extreme unemployment they faced, were signing on the London streets for money for food.{{citation needed|date=January 2012|reason=ughh, 1)contemporary sources show some Welsh miners being arrested in December 1928 why singing Welsh songs on the streets of London for alms, 2) Kingsford lists it in his book p. 89-108 and has them arriving in London on February 24, 1929 which fits with all contemporary sources and then has them in Trafalgar Square, 3) the Honorable Dr. Hywel Francis just completely ignores the Second National Hunger March and says the Second National Hunger March was in 1932(?) which is pretty dumb, and 4) Hannington, Wal is a first person account of the 2nd National Hunger Strike and he is, of course, Scottish}} Robeson promptly joined them in begging for money by singing with them and ultimately performed an extemporaneous version of ''Ol' Man River''.<ref>Robeson 2001: 156</ref> Subsequently, he and Lawrence Brown went on a tour of Europe, performing in [[Vienna]], [[Prague]] and [[Budapest]], before returning to London for a concert at [[Royal Albert Hall]].<ref>Seton 1978: 31-33; cf. Duberman: 120-121</ref>

1. It is Kingsford book p. 89-108 [1] and is termed the Second National Hunger March (1929)
2. Kingsord book is Scottish based and draws from Hannington's book which is on Microform here[2]
3. But Hywel Francis here Miners Against Fascism which is an MP from Wales just completely skips over that march and calls the Second March as in 1932
4. three Welsh unemployed were arrested in London and made the news in December 1928 for singing as they begged for money and were sent back to Wales - news.google.
5. Hannington's book is a first person account of the 1929 March - he's from Scotland
6. the march took off from Scotland on Jan 22, 1929, but all contingents (there were about 8, including 1 from Wales) arrived on Feb 24, 1929 according to Kingsford and contemporary news support that - news.google.
7. all marchers got enough money to return by train on March 4th to their respective homes(maybe 3rd)

The problem is that Francis obliterates the march, maybe out of some indignation that the Welsh guys begged for money at it was deemed low class(?) or maybe because the government refused to see the marchers(?), and does not even mention it in his book. Furthermore he has a chronology of events in his book and 1929 does not exist.

I just noticed Hannington has some more books. I could check them. The microform book he has would be a hassle to look at and I would need something to go on before cracking it open. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Sid Elias (I can't find him) led the Wales contingent and the marchers seemed to have had as their meeting places as Trafalgar Square.

Generally it's all believable. Robeson jumping up to sing with Welsh miners on the street begging for money is not the least bit surprising. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fantastic research, thanks. I saw that Hannington wrote about the 1929 march. Francis is just not thorough enough. Several contingents converging on London makes sense. I just can't quite believe that Robeson joining in was completely spontaneous. He is likely to have been alerted by Labour Party contacts, or the miners were alerted to try and find him. I don't think that they just bumped into each other. Or Robeson might have seen the newspaper report about miners arrested for singing and then gone to find them. Only real archive research will get to the very bottom of it. I think you need to start planning to write the next definitive biography. Duberman will be superseded then. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a corroboration collaboration some people are good at research some people are smart and help decide the direction of the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Labour was against the march. I read Hannington's 1929 book. You can not believe that Robeson would join in spontaneously? What has consistently amazed me about Robeson was the he consistently joined in everywhere singing spontaneously. The miners were arrested in December and were told to leave London and agreed not to return to London for 3 years. The miners in the 1929 march "broke through" the West End police on Thursday (February 28 - remember they left on train on the 3rd) in order to "startle the well-to-do class". All through the march to London, all the Welsh miners did was sing on their walk and sing in makeshift concert halls to keep up their spirits and thank those who housed them. One of the main songs they sung was The Internationale and the other 2 leaders besides Elias were Tom Thomas, and (I think) a Mr. Crichley. The Welsh miners, for there part, set out on February 11th with 140 elected men from all parts of South Wales during a blizzard.

I would certainly like to tie in Robeson with this group. But I went through Horner's book and one of Hannington's other books. I do not think its possible. If I had a tie in w Robeson to this group, then I would immediately place it in the article. Robeson was sick of singing the same old songs at the time, he probably loved singing with them. I'm dying to put him in joining the marchers because it crosses so many boundaries. Churchill is in the thick of it, the Labour party, arguably, gains power because of it. It's a missed opportunity. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Supporters of the marchers were the CPGB, the National Minority Movement, the Sunday Worker, the Workers' Life, and the Worker. (Note: 11 different communities of Great Britain contributed to the march). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Civil Rights Congress of 1949 and Trotskyists

One citation in the entire paragraph/section. Speak now. Because that whole section is earmarked for deletion. 1949 is a bear on this article. I will move quickly to delete it en masse. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Times up, Deleted:

====Civil Rights Congress of 1949 and Trotskyists====In January 1949, Robeson led a conference of delegates to march on the White House, again demanding government action against lynching; Truman refused to see them. Robeson spoke at the "Bill of Rights Conference", in New York, sponsored by CRC, again calling for an end to segregation and lynching. The 1,200 delegates issued a statement which said, in part, "We declare that Robeson does, indeed, speak for us, not only in his fight for full democratic rights, but also in his fight for peace." Robeson also spoke at a mass meeting of 1,500 sponsored by the Civil Rights Congress in support of the [[Trenton Six]]. At a [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] Conference in New York in July 1949, Robeson denounced a motion, which called for the freeing of nineteen members of the [[Socialist Workers Party (United States)|Socialist Workers Party]] convicted in 1941, calling the imprisoned [[Trotskyists]]- who were at odds with the Soviet leadership-"the allies of Fascism who want to destroy the new democracies of the world...let's not get confused, they are the enemies of the working class. Would you give civil rights to the [[Ku Klux Klan]]?"<ref>Duberman: 382"</ref> "[I]t was not Robeson's finest hour." On August 4, 1949 Robeson also led a picket line in front of White House, called by [[United Public Workers of America]] to protest racist hiring practices at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, challenging Truman to make good on his civil rights promises and enforce the Fair Employment Practices Act.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011|reason=It should be Duberman}}66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep a bit of it? It is a turning point in the Cold War, when FBI started get very itchy indeed about his activities. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can. I put in on the talk page because it's then easier to find rather than track down what was written about it in the history of the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The wisest course of action is, at this point, to redo everything before his marriage - which is all rough draft level stuff anyway. In his marriage or in sections after that, I am rearranging chronologically and arbitrarily assigning importance and choosing a version of events - which may not be the correct choice. It's just best effort. How am I supposed to know if Essie found Peggy's letter or Yolanda's and Peggy's? If he found both letter's, I could conceivably just delete him finding Yolanda's letter anyway because it makes the article too long and does not add much (hmm - that sounds like a good idea) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Great Depression

The height (nadir) of the Great Depression in the United States was in 1932. This was the year that Robeson and Jackson terminated their relationship. Sanford, and at least one other person got to Robeson, over Jackson's and Robeson's break up. B&B's interpretation of the breakup is primarily devoted to a racial/class stumbling point. Robeson Jr. falls short in his analysis in my opinion. It's a tremendously, extremely common cliche to make out the football coach as a father figure, especially in this case, because authors are diminishing Robeson's personal opinion of Sanford. I'm stuck. I got no authors to support me where I want to go, but someone got to Robeson. It's not a racial thing, it's not a class warfare thing, it's a .......... thing; someone told Robeson, .... But I can't do nothing. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not discussed by author's is Pollard tossing down some beers w Robeson. Not really discussed by author's his is Robeson meeting his former teammates on the French Riviera. Not really discussed w author's is Robeson's, never before seen, discussion w race relations (except w Salemme) with his former teammates. Of course my focus is going to be football-centric :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation is biased along the line that Stanford got to Robeson. Probably when he received the honorary degree at Rutgers, see also Robeson 2001:192-193 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Permanent reconciliation of Robeson and Essie in 1932

Does anyone disagree that they permanently reconciled in 1932. I am not talking about meaningless one-night stands that may or may not have occurred. Is there any source that disputes this. Is there any one that disputes that any relationship Robeson had post-1932 was consequential and threatened the marriage of Essie and Robeson? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Othello in London first time

I thought that an editor complained that there were other Black actors that played Othello in GB between Ira and Robeson. Maybe I read it wrong. But overwhelming evidence indicates that is the casethere were no other Black actors that played Othello in GB between Ira and Robeson. What Morrison points out is that the contemporary news sources say that Robeson was the first to play Othello, and thus contemporary news sources did not account for Ira. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

section i and ii

general format looks ok to me 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Non Academic or Non News Organization websites

This weekend for any described website in this titled section:

1. I am going to delete all the usages of any website for more than one citation and then fold the website into a citation needed
2. I am going to delete any more than 2 usages from any domain for citations and then fold it under a citation needed

So, for example, bayarearobeson.org only gets 2 pages to be used for 2 citations and bayarearobeson.org/Chronology_6.htm only gets to be used once. As far as I know, it's not an academic website but I don't want to insult the contributions people associated with that website might have made to this article and I don't want to censor that website. But, the reliance on such websites need to be minimized. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bayarearobeson is not a reliable source in WP terms. Its a useful resource for people just starting to read up, and we could have it as an EL but not as a source. Usually its statements come from sources we can find, and we should replace it. We won't get this article to FA if it cites bayarearobeson. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm off the hook then. But now I won't delete anything this weekend. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am not going to delete anything is because then we have to discuss whether it should be an EL. I personally hate informal EL's, maybe we should leave it in until, and if, the paul robeson foundation gets their chronology finished. They will probably link to it and if they do, or even if they don't, we can then delete the EL here. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I think it's massive overkill and kind of silly to delete that website as a citation, especially when I am backing it up with professional authors, but if that's the rules than that's the rules. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Preparing to delete link to the Wikipedia aritcle Political views of Paul Robeson

Saving the ensuing sources from it:

1. Mikhoels-Vovsi, Natalya. Vremya i mwi, Tel-Aviv 1976, pg 190
2. Shostakovich, Dimitri. Testimony, Harper Row 1979 pgs 188-189
3. Markish, Esther. The Living Journey, 1978.
4. Kurjer Codzienny, June 10, 1949 (Polish Newspaper)[Translation:"...he was given an unusually cordial reception after his commenting...the song of the Warsaw ghetto was enthusiastically received by the audience."]
5. Foner,Phillip.Paul Robeson Speaks:The Negro and The Soviet Union, 1978,pgs 237
6. Foner,Phillip.Paul Robeson Speaks:The Negro and The Soviet Union, 1978,pgs 238
7. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6440/"You Are the Un-Americans, and You Ought to be Ashamed of Yourselves": Paul Robeson Appears Before HUACretrieved March 2nd 2009
8. Robinson, Robert "Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union [Acropolis 1988]pp.318-319

All other sources from that article are duplicate in this article and the same about 1956 Congressional Hearings, see below

1. West, Jean. "Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson, Interview Essay". Retrieved 2009-04-15.
2. Tygiel, Jules (1983). Baseball's Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and His Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 30. ISBN 0-19-503300-0.
3. Robinson, Jackie (1972). "Breaking the Color Barrier". I Never Had It Made. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. p. 53. ISBN 0060555971.
4. Whitfield, Stephen J. (1996). The Culture of the Cold War (2d. ed.). p. 194. ISBN 9780801851957.

Wikipedia is not a you are wrong, and I am right, it's a you did good and I improved upon it (or at least I tried). I've folded everything back into this article for me to reevaluate the sources.

I have tucked away the See Also's and Main Article links. They do not look like they are self-sustaining at this time. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Great Depression and Robeson again

I really do not understand any authors during this period. No author has attacked him at all (B&B made what can be considered as the most important assault on his character which I would deem as just unbelievably and totally insignificant. No one attacks him at all. So I got nothing. I can not attack Robeson if no professional author attacks Robeson. There is 25% employment in the U.S. and Robeson is making how much money a week? ) How can authors not deal with the Scottsboro nine being sentenced to death and Robeson chilling w Jackson in her chauffeured limousine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

one of the problem's is Patterson's book, according to Horne, is abysmal, and you very simply do not wanna tangle w Horne. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutralized (1950–1958)

I just made that section title yesterday or day before as a preemptive strike on Robeson Jr. to indicate Robeson was already neutralized. Today I came across Gill's book, Harlem, and apparently there is a scholarly debate over whether or not the NAACP neutralized Robeson. Gill said there is no "clear cut evidence" that the NAACP did. So now the section title stays and the investigation needs to be done. Gill does not use citations in his book so I don't know who is refuting White's (?) and Truman's pow-wow when they threw Robeson under the bus. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Paris Peace Congress of 1949

This article writes: "The AP had prefabricated Robeson's speech and put it on the wires just as he was starting his speech." That's really annoying because now this article might need to find out if that was a standard practice of the AP. Its just so out on the limb. Generally speaking, as early as the 1930s Robeson was already getting frustrated with the media misquoting him. That section needs to be hammered. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we delete this website as a citation http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-6/robeson1.html ?

? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hill

Wholesale delete: "Herbert Hill, former labor director of the NAACP, commented on the Feffer's demise fifty years later stating 'just think what it would have meant if he had denounced this evil while in the Soviet Union and instead he comes back and he lies, he lies again and again and he knows better.'"

The reason is this statement allegedly (it's uncited) occurs after the release of classified USSR documents in the early 1990s. Robeson can only be criticized in this article for what he knew at the time events occurred. All criticisms and events have to be put into context. If Hill did actually make that statement, then I strongly suspect the NAACP had institutionalized their rewriting of history with respect to their treatment of Robeson.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Feffer

The most difficult section in this article should be dealing w Feffer. I wish Robeson Jr. did not come in with the MI5 or CIA neutralizing Robeson with whatever drug he says they got him with, but since he's a professional author, then I have to deal with it. But his father was already neutralized, although not physically. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stalin

Anything associated with Stalin is extremely difficult. The article is extremely, extremely difficult to write because you basically have a football player jumping into political associations with other characters that are mass murderers of epic proportions. Honestly, Wikipedia articles about Goering or Beria would be much easier to write because it's all in the same vain. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Below 130k

Next step is to get below 120k. This article has not below 120k since Nov 2010. And this article has tons more citations and books involved than Nov 2010. Although the external links have been greatly tightened up. I do not like external links. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

today was a bloodbath in this article; I just decimated anything and everything for the slightest excuse in order to delete it and reduce the article size. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Citizen of the World

I do not know where this phrase comes from. But it was at some point entered into the English lexicon. Duberman, Robeson Jr. and others really do not explain Robeson. Whomever coined that phrase looks to be correct. Robeson was really a nobody and he rose to unparalleled heights. I am just totally confused. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing

1. wwi and rotc
2. interpretation of his early performances that are intelligently written and fun to read

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Malcolm X

Deleted below. They did not meet. If Malcolm respected Robeson that is understandable. Malcolm, unlike Robeson, has a huge popular following nowadays. But Malcolm, unlike Belafonte and Poitier who also highly respected Robeson, did not outlive Robeson and did not provide any concrete opinion, that I have been able to ascertain, about Robeson; so, it's deleted.

[[Malcolm X]] was one of those who attended the funeral. The two men did not meet on that occasion, but Malcolm X, who admired Robeson, subsequently approached Paul Jr. about arranging a meeting. (According to [[Ossie Davis]], he was also approached by Malcolm X's intermediaries in hopes of meeting Robeson.)<ref>Smethurst: 53</ref> Robeson agreed, but Malcolm X was assassinated before the meeting could be arranged.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Centennial remembrance

Legacy, Posthumous honors are standard section names in Wikipedia articles. Centennial celebrations/remembrances exist as unwritten section names on Wikipedia, although extremely rare because people go on with their lives - or the person never touched a nerve, or whatever. I codified it and I think it's a valid section name for a biography on Wikipedia. There was a problem which I did not catch until a couple of days ago, but Bert Bell's sons complained about the NFL not recognizing their father's birth 100 years after it happened. They are right. Now that I have codified it here I can then deal with it there.66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

East German and other countries papers in 1976

I have access to papers throughout the world. East German papers and other Soviet Bloc papers speaking about Robeson's death can not very simply be trusted. I do not have access to Welsh newspapers at all. But India, France, Sweden, and England are clearly in the ballgame. South Africa of course has to be ignored. I'll check Kenya.

The Paul Robeson Bibliography, which I had in this article at one time, only has one article from India (a paper's name I did not recognize) and some British newspapers obituaries.

The reason I can use those obituaries for a view of his life and strike the Daily Worker from the article is cause I don't think the authors have done their homework. For instance according to the wikipedia article on the Daily Worker, its max circulation was 35K. The most influential newspaper in france in 1976 will have a vastly greater circulation than 35k, same w India, and as far as Sweden goes, the King come over for the funeral and the Nobel Prize is there, and as far as Kenya goes, cross because Kenyatta was still in power (I think). If I think professional authors purposely ignore something, than I have to ignore it. However, if i think professional authors are negligent - which I do, then all non-primary sources are in the ballgame.66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Trial of the sixteen

Robeson Jr. was 9 years old during the trial. He is not a reliable source for his father to use about what was going on at the time. This does not mean what he said he told his father was false - it means I don't believe his father would let his 9 year old son be the alpha and the omega of knowledge of what was going on in the Soviet Union. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Robeson Jr's account corroborates nicely w Rogovin and Lustiger. Despite the "near experience far experience" article in further reading, first and foremost, it still boils down to what did Robeson know and when did he know it. Also, in a shocking twist, the 1937 trials were, according to Rogovin and fellow researchers, were not the ravings of a lunatic, but actually a wise (forgive me) preemptive Machiavellian strike by Stalin against his few dozen oppositionists. As for the other 300,000 people (give or take 200k) that lost their loves in Stalin's Great Purge in 1938-1939, that's a different matter. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

1933

Robeson Jr's interpretation fits nicely. It looks like Essie and Robeson reconciled, de facto, by the end of 1932. 1933 there was no work for him - near as I can tell. Only a slight reference from B&B about Pollard being glad for the work in 1933, but there's no comment by any author I can find yet that it was the nadir of the Great Depression and Robeson had trouble finding work, except in the Emperor Jones where he acted like a complete prima donna with 25% of the country out of work. No author I have found will slam him for that though. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Point being, it's very difficult to find an author to slam Robeson (Essie don't count) except for nickel-dime newspapers. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Train platform in Berlin

Clearly a seminal moment in his life. He was ready to go. I don't know how I can bring that in without using slang, but he was ready to go. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sergei Kirov

This has to be deleted: Commenting in 1935 on the execution of several counter-revolutionaries, Robeson said: "From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot!"{{citation needed|date=January 2012|reason=rinky dink sources like the Daily Worker can not be used<ref name="autogenerated1935"/>}}

1. no context is provided
2. was he misquoted (every newspaper article that comes into this article has to be vetted properly)? Hopefully I will have access to the microform edition of that tomorrow so it has to be checked if it was even printed
3. did he say that because he loved he USSR?
4. did he say that because, at least one of the persons executed was actually responsible for the murder and he was just seeking good old fashion American justice? (If he said that they needed to be lynched, then that would be a different ballgame and I would have to leave it in the article to find out what was going on)
5. the daily worker was a communist paper, they are bound to be Extremely biased (!) and there is just no way that can be used as a source for that comment
6. all papers in this article (I'll need to double-check this) are only used for innocuous statements like he scored 2 touchdowns in a football game or reviews of plays, really silly stuff and for the most they are used because authors of books are pointing to them as sources
7. the people, that were executed, were executed for different reasons and Robeson was no way up to speed on Stalin's Machiavellian machinations

Initial investigations indicate that no one in the West knew the depth to which Stalin had headed during the Great Purge prior to 1939 and only in 1939 it appears foreign intelligence had figured out he was killing lots of people - but I don't think they realized it had been 400,000 + or - 200,000. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Master's degree, sanford, SOAS, and reconciliation

My interpretation is now that when he got his master's degree, all accounts show him massively proud of it. Sanford told him to reconcile w Essie when he got the award. Maybe someone prodded him at Rutgers to further his studies in academia and so he got involved with SOAS, and the rest is history. I think that makes sense. All that needs to be done is to find a contemporary source that puts Sanford at that celebration and then the door can be closed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW, I think Duberman bungled his interpretation of why Robeson got so involved in African studies. There's a piece missing, maybe all those times he walked by Garvey on a box on Malcolm X Blvd? Maybe he met someone in England?66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Robeson the activist vs. pop opinion

If this article charts Robeson's rise to fame step by step, then I think, analogously, it needs to chart his political opinions w respect to popular opinion in a step by step fashion. If it's not aware, Andrei Zhdanov gave a speech, circa 1937, that artists need to connect with the regular folks -> which puts Robeson's "I like to sing songs that resonate with regular folks" right in line with that. Robeson ideas along this line seem to predate Zhdanov's. There's a highly acclaimed book out, hot off the presses, on artists in Russia, specifically including Eisenstein, during the 1930s, but it's a tough one for me to get.

Putting Robeson square in line w Communist propaganda circa 1937 does not, in the least bit, take him out of mainstream artistic opinion. The SU was looked on very favorably at the time. No one knew that forced collectivization killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people. No one knew in the West of the extent of the loss of life in the SU in 1937 and 1938 (it was - for talk page only - 385k as a first estimate). Ignorance, in this regard, is an excuse.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Robeson seems to be squarely in the mainstream until, at the very least, he sings that Ballad for Americans song. The question is, did he turn to the left, or did America turn to the right, or was there a combination of the 2. And everyone in America and Europe hated fascism (except the fascists of course) in the 1930s, so being anti-fascist was mainstream according to Bloodlands. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

first this and that and scheduling conflicts and missed opportunites

1. Basically everything Robeson did in his artistic career was the first ever. It uses too many bytes to say it
2. scheduling conflicts: Robeson, except for 1932 and 1933 (my original opinion) had scheduling conflicts all over the places so all scheduling conflicts have to be ignored, there are dozens of them
3. he wanted to do a picture of this or that person, or he wanted to go to Africa, that's all over the place, they have to be ignored because there were so many missed opportunities in his life

66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

it just uses too many bytes to say coulda woulda shoulda 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you know?

Worst thing on Wikipedia is the did you know garbage. I hope no one debases this article with did you know type garbage factoids.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

biographers, legacy and I got lucky and Duberman bungles another one

1. I would only like to bring in biographers or real heavy-weights in writing about Robeson's legacy. I think I got lucky with Essie's biography because I placed it chronologically. Now I think the thing to do is bring in Hoyt's condemnation of Robeson but place it chronologically in 1968.
2. I brought in Tzouliadis to counteract Robeson's Jr. interpretation of his father's suicide. Tzouliadis produces names of other people who despaired over Khruschev's 1956 revelation of Stalin's crimes. Tzouliadis is no where near a heavy-weight, near as I can tell, but Robeson Jr., by his very bloodline is not neutral, so it's okay.
3. Tzouliadis decided to write something along the lines of "Robeson was culpable for Stalin's crimes" because of all his speeches supporting Stalin. If Buckley had wrote that, then it goes in the article. But TZ does not have impressive credentials and he is not a biographer.
4. Robinson, Robert is in the ballgame because he gives a specific example of Robeson knowing what was going on in the Soviet Union. However, realize that Rogovin, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences and leading researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences in Moscow, writes that no one in the West really knew the extent of the Great Terror and this by all accounts looks believable. That being said Trotsky, a mass-murder in his own right, knew and Orwell certainly was putting the pieces together based on his experiences in Spain. But, Trotsky and Orwell were intellectual and political giants.
5. Duberman bungled Orlov's 1956 article in Life magazine as it is indirectly detailed in Rogovin's book. To make a long story short, Stalin was a tiny bit justified with conducting the Moscow Trials, although the 720,000 +- 300,000 people killed during the Great Purge and the 1,500,000 +- 500,000 million starved to death in the forced collectivization between 1928 and 1933 is another matter altogether. (on another note: there was apparently only 1 person in the world outside the Soviet Union that knew what was going on during the forced collectivization, and he was a welsh reporter, Gareth Jones (journalist) who publicized his findings to the world but the world did not listen.) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Suicide and Tzouliadis

Apparently there still is some kind of stigma associated with people that committed suicide or were suicidal at one point in there life. So Robeson Jr. is preventing making a defense, and, possibly, people favorable to Robeson have included it in this article (or some people just like to introduce conspiracy theories on Wikipedia too). This article has to choose to deal with it or not deal with it. I prefer not to deal with it and delete the whole thing. My opinion is pretty clear at this point. Robeson was neutralized either by the Federal Government (or the Federal Government and the NAACP - just an avenue that needs to be explored at this time). I am going to delete the whole thing from Robeson Jr. en masse. If anyone puts it back in, then I am bringing in NFL players that suffered from depression or committed suicide and I will also bring in Tzouliadis and the other author(s) from an academic journal that say dispirited Stalinists were prone to committing suicide after Khruschev's revelation. I have not tracked down the person Tzouliadis said committed suicide because of becoming dispirited over Khruschev's speech to see if his claim has any veracity yet, but I know it's on p. 327.

And Tzouliadis' book gets scorched in a criticism at nypl.org. Basically the critic lambastes him for going off-topic and specifically point to his diatribe about Robeson. Claiming Robeson was morally culpable for Stalin's crimes is not 3rd grade, it's kindergarten. I fail to see how anyone can claim Robeson was responsible for Stalin's actions in the '30s when the American press fondly gave Stalin the nickname of Uncle Joe during WWII. And really, all of WWII is closed out in this regard. Now, once the Marshall Plan is enacted and the Iron Curtain falls, that's a different ballgame altogether. (Note: I still have Robinson's book out there in the wings so I will look to see what Robinson says Robeson (and Essie!) said and did, or better - failed to do, in 1937 and 1938).66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Robeson was neutralized either by the Federal Government (or the Federal Government and the NAACP - just an avenue that needs to be explored at this time)." Is this a claim you're going to insert into the article? Or, for that matter, are you deleting things because you believe this claim is true? CityOfSilver 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not inserting or deleting anything along that lines at this time. It needs to be researched whether or not the Federal Government established a quid pro quo with the NAACP to neutralize Robeson. Horne suggests they did. Gill says there is no concrete proof of that. Furthermore, that's in 1947/1948. I am editing in 1933. I am extremely biased to believe Horne. I never heard of Gill. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I admit you're talking over my head; I know little about Robeson and nothing about those researchers. Regarding "It needs to be researched whether or not the Federal Government established a quid pro quo with the NAACP to neutralize Robeson", please read our policy on original research. If at some point in the future you look into it, decide who's right, and edit here accordingly, you would be in violation of that policy.

I should also say, as a personal opinion, it is highly unlikely that you will find a reliable source willing to say Paul Robeson was murdered via an agreement between the American government and the NAACP. It's so unlikely that I also believe that any source (i.e., Horne) is probably declaring itself unreliable if it makes that claim. CityOfSilver 22:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, my bad. Neutralized is a euphemism and not a literal definition of a physical assault to take place. It does not mean the U.S. government sought to kill him. The term neutralize is meant to portray the U.S. Government's, possible(! and still unexplored, and not yet researched), desire to censor him - to shut him up - to not allow his opinions of anti-colonialism, Stalinism, of self-determination in African colonies to be promulgated. It's a freedom of speech battle, not a Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness battle.

To make a long story short, the section title Neutralize stays in tact because there is, apparently, an academic battle whether or not the NAACP sought to ideologically neutralize Robeson for their own benefit. The question this article should answer is, did the NAACP throw Robeson under the bus?66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Curthoys: Tour of Australia and New Zealand

Curthoys is impeccable. Thank goodness Stalin is dead then. That should be the best section in this article because of her writing. The section probably needs to be "polluted" with mickey mouse American newspaper accounts of his trip because, after 7 years of research, Duberman looks to have understandably gotten tired of his book and his depiction is weak. Curthoys stays on point. She ignores United States newspapers' opinion of Robeson's comments during this tour and focuses solely on the Robesons impact to Australian society. New Zealand needs further research. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Donaldson v. Tony Award

The Wikipedia article on the Donaldson Award is completely bogus. I would merge it into the Tony Award article. So Robeson won a Tony as far as I am concerned cause it saves 20 bytes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Foner

I can not tell if Foner p. 112-115 is published in 1978 or 2001. It does not make sense if it was published in 1978 because the title of the book is supposedly A Century of Greatness. I am committed to removing that book as a source unless some one affiliated with the Paul Robeson Foundation grants me access to that book or tells me where it is physically located in the United States. And whether that book was published by Henry or Eric Foner would be helpful too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I only know one rule in Wikipedia. I need to physically hold the author's book in my hands and evaluate it to find out if its a serious book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to this sentence and its cites?

• J. Edgar Hoover and the United States State Department arranged for the article to be printed and distributed in Africa in order to defame Robeson's reputation and negate his specific, and the Communists in general, popularity in colonial countries. Another article by Wilkins denounced Robeson as well as the CPUSA in terms consistent with the anti-Communist FBI propaganda.

That appears to reference: Foner, Henry (2001). Paul Robeson: A Century of Greatness. Paul Robeson Foundation. I can't find it in WorldCat, so I've written to the foundation to ask about it.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks. I am totally confused and frustrated. I prefer to just delete all the Foner 2001 citations-the only things I can probably not track down the primary source for are anything that happened in New Zealand. If he could not get that book published, if he indeed did write a manuscript for one, then I can only conclude it is deemed an insignificant work. Someone looks to be confusing Foner 1978 with Foner 2001 in citations also. I'll have access to Foner 1978 in 2 hours. Maybe that will solve the puzzle. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation responded briefly, acknowledging the publication, and said they'd reply more fully after the weekend.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks. I've deprecated all of, I'm guessing, the use of Henry Foner as a source except for that one New Zealand citation and the one "Foreword" citation in a book (i'm gunning for it). I really do not like to use a "Foreword" of a book as a citation - it just does not feel right. A foreword of a book can be written by anyone. I only want high-class sources in this article (i still disagree with user Judith because the s.f. people are still ok for me because i back up it up with known published authors), but whatever she wants is ok w me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem with Foner. Why should his works be deprecated?   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Where's the book located? Is it under lock and key? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to stake your word that the citation is valid, then that's good enough for me. I have deleted thousands of bytes but I know people are passionate about this topic (I am not) so I really do not like to delete other people's stuff. This article is not going anywhere quickly, so it is not a major concern. But, if you are not aware, authors are biasing things in there direction. Stuckey is major, major biasing it in pro-Robeson, Boyle and Bunie have a solid anti-Robeson bias, the stuff written in the 1970s is not pro-bias Robeson per se, it is vituperative anti-establishment diatribes. There's a battle surrounding Robeson to over, or under emphasize, his support for anti-colonialism and there is a battle surrounding Robeson to over, or under emphasize, his pro-socialist bias--the battle does not exist among Wikipedia editors; it exists among professionally published authors.

I list the authors and the page numbers that I write my interpretation from. I am not emotionally involved; if someone wants to write a different interpretation, heck, godspeed. I put in place tools so they can support their argument and refute opponents. Their is no right or wrong. I certainly don't claim to be omniscient. That being said, i want the book made available. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain something. The complete popular story in the Robeson legacy was he realized that Great Britain was not a utopian non-racist environment because of the "Savoy incident", and it's spoken about in all authors. Guess what? It's not true.

In the 1928-1929 Showboat in Great Britain, the actors and actresses of African heritage got dressed on one side of the stage and actors and actresses of European heritage got dressed on the other side of the stage (cf. Low or the other magazine)- that's not racist? The world renown "Savoy incident" spoken by every single biographer was not a racial thing as all biographers claim, Robeson was pulling a power play using his socialist MPs to draw attention (which he already knew existed) to racism in Great Britain, and therein is the missing piece of the puzzle to solve why Robeson Jr claims that his "half-decade association with British socialists led him to visit the USSR.[citation needed]" The 1930 Savoy incident is not a racial thing, if you will, he possibly tested the socialists and they were not found wanting.

I want to get access to that book. Only a full and fair reading of all material can provide the best possible article. Where are all the biographers on the Jim Crow dressing rules in Great Britain in 1928 (guess what? they are missing reading the book in the Lincoln Center Library in New York City - not a 2 bit library)? I need access to all information on Robeson. I want the book made available. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's Duberman way back in 1988, "There is not clear-cut explanation for Robeson's pronounced shift"... towards his study of African culture. That's because Duberman's book is old and he does not have access to the last 15 years worth of material. It's basically in Balaji's book (which was not appreciated by book reviewers however) and basically Boyle and Bunie's book and reviewing contemporary news sources and common sense (this is sitting in the sandbox presently). Simple question, if you wanted to teach a 5 year old calculus, would you start with addition? Where did Robeson start, studying languages. Some of the topics in this article are very complicated, so you need access to all books possible. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

i don't know what to say except i think my analysis blows the doors off of duberman, robeson jr., etc. but i need access to all the books. i got robeson in on a power-play to test the socialists which after they passed the test he became more inclined to socialism. i got him having his integrity insulted by the nya news and him responding to it by starting to study African culture....i got him being sent packing by truman and him responding by hitting back, i got him dealing w feffer and making a conscientious decision that lives had to be sacrificed like in scottsboro. i think it's bad to underestimate his intellect, courage, and resolve and even books that are heavily biased towards him, like Foner and Stucky, need to be looked at. the american legion, which Truman was a member, looks to be largely responsible for the Peekskill riots. Everything is in the ballgame, Truman, the Marshall Doctrine, ALGOSO, the American Legion, Stalinism, Zhadanov, his folks songs vis a vis socialism, anti-imperialism, McCarthy, FBI, SYNC, NNC, Eisenhower, Tenney, everything. I want the book made available. I can hopefully get around the current problem w Von Eschten, but I want to read what Henry Foner wrote in context.

Duberman's book was great for 1988, now, it's about as good as a 13 year old kid could do. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Messenger and Harlem Renaissance

I do not understand the biographers. The fact that Robeson wrote an essay for the Messenger in 1924 according to B&B or 1925 according to Wilson is extremely important. This shows him part of the cultural awakening in Harlem. What he wrote is also extremely important. It would strongly suggest it should have been placed in the body of the books, rather than as a footnote. I consequently chose to quote a good portion of his essay. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The point being Wintz (I think) has Robeson as one of the 3 most important figures coming out of the HR which puts him with Du Bois and Hughes(I think) and that essay is consequently extremely important. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon in 1915

Circa 1915, Robeson was already aware of the Simon the Cyrene as a play by Torrence and had read it. He explained the plot to the Sunday school students, where he was the school superintendent, at his father's church. It's in one of the proquest docs. It's left out because the section is long enuf. Starting from B&B, it should be possible to guess when he read the play. The whole HR section might need a rewrite. I don't like the analysis of authors used. His contemporary humility ("fate got me the part") is offset by the reality of - he got his first part because he was tall, dark, and handsome - and was a law student, I mean c'mon let's get real. Mostly I have all the theatre/film authors in the wings and I misused Nollen excessively in this article - those statements I use for him as a source are not his specialty. I'll revisit them for this, maybe I'll get lucky with Dyer. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

jackie robinson

My gut feeling is this article is overstating the importance of Robeson's contribution to Robinson breaking the color barrier. We need some more books. "In December, 1943, Robeson addressed an annual meeting of Major League Baseball club owners, demanding they admit black players into the league." Is too strong and Henry Foner is not a specialist in this matter. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (and its in a foreword in a book which is worse than an introduction of a book, and I don't think introductions of a book should be used in an article on Wikipedia) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am prejudiced to believe it should say something like: "recognizing the indisputable success Robeson had in breaking the color barrier in Othello on Broadway, long time advocates of breaking the color barrier in MLB, sought out Robeson, who had previously ...Rutgers...NYU in 1941..." Hrmm... 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

nope, he was personally invited by Landis to attend apparently, but he argued as I stated. Duberman's pp. 282-283 erroneous interpretation is based on a faulty source, Ishamael Flory. This article Baseball color line is a nogo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Othello pictures - only 1 is allowed

[[File:Paul Robeson - NARA - 559205.tif|thumb|right|Paul Robeson as painted by [[Betsy Graves Reyneau]], in the collection of the [[National Archives and Records Administration]]]] choose this one or the other 1, not both 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Worst picture on Wikipedia the backyard of the SOAS house?

[[File:SOAS Paul Robeson House Yard.jpg|thumb|[[Paul Robeson House (London)|Paul Robeson House]], a [[School of Oriental and African Studies]] hall of residence opened in 1998.]] C'mon guys. It's the backyard and does not even show his name on the building. This is really bad. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done my part

i got the article to 1932-1933. I've done my part. I only think 2 things are omitted. 1) he knew about racism in england during showboat, and 2) the savoy incident on his part was a power play.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration and a consensus. The basic building blocks of a good article are there and I have done the best job as I can researching it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Vindictive Essie

I think user Justderek should reevaluate the removal of the term vindictive in her biography about Robeson. She was an extremely intelligent woman and she knew exactly what she was doing. She was out to get him, and she got him - that's vindictive. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

nyan

I am going to be tied for awhile. But I think this article needs to realize that the NYAN insulted his integrity. And, there is nothing in his life that suggests it ever occurred before. And that's why he turned to studying African culture in depth.66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Show Boat (1928-1929)

"The show had premiered in New York in 1927, but Robeson had not been able to appear in it then because of schedule conflicts"

I jacked a citation needed on that because

1. its not true, and
2. its off topic

What happened was he was scheduled to appear and then there was a delay in the production. Since there was a delay in the production it produced a conflict. So as you can see, thats a big fat sentence to explain why he did nothing.

I am really sorry for the big Robeson fans, but the fact of the matter he wanted to do a lot of things in his life, but he did not finish them. \ That's not a knock on him (umm, I certainly would like to do certain things also). But it should not be included in this article......of course if you really want to include it, what do I care, really. I don't have time to argue. But you gotta cite it or its targeted for deletion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

For the pro-Robeson folks, look at Variety magazine. They should show him being very popular in 1927-1928. Go with something abstract and jack a cf on it. That magazine should have been active then and you could squeeze something in there that's good and not off topic and meaningless. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle hymns as a result of the Spanish Civil War

I put in what I could to prevent the article from being hagiography. But, sources need to be researched with respect to musical responses to this war. I can not. I have no free time. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

For the anti-Robeson folks, p. 313 of Hopkins is extremely deadly. It is mandatory to investigate who was primarily responsible for this sea-change. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Khruschev's memoirs

K's 3 volume memoirs was translated into english, in a first edition, but they were abridged, so they are probably useless. The "second edition" has 1 volume translated but it predates Robeson. The three volume set, originally published in Russian, must be investigated. It is available in the new york public library. I have no time to do this (not to mention I can not read russian). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Eisenhower, et cal

Clearly this article has the ability to establish an indirect link between Robeson and Eisenhower, thanks to American Blacklist but the direct link to Truman is kind of sloppy. McCullough's book is hagiographical (despite what one author, I forget who, that says Truman was a true champion of Civil Rights, much more so than McCullough intimates). This article has no direct or indirect link to Stalin or Khrushchev. This article does not have a direct link to Nehru, but he played a major role in getting Robeson's passport restriction lifted - I forget which author. All of these things need to be explored for this article. And I have no idea why, "He was honored at the United Nations General Assembly for his efforts to end Apartheid in South Africa." This has to be explored also. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Unnecessary hidden comments removed

In essays such as I Want to be African,

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

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)

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)

Cool. Fix section titles please. I hate doing section title names. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Every back issue of the Daily Targum now needs to be acquired. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"To exploit the past is the historian's loss."173.167.196.9 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The new editor did not respond. It's tangential. It's deleted. 173.167.196.9 (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) 21:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

7 bytes at a time

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

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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And "socialist" is no better than "communist" in the absence of reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

We should all bear in mind the criteria for good article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Are you proposing a change to this article? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

What are the sources? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good start. [3]. Coomentary magazine has a number of excelent essays as well. AJCohn (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Itsmejudith ... ahh, I see. I edit the body so the head can flow with it. AJCohn (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

This has nothing to do with "attacking" anyone, just providing a balanced presentation of the subject. AJCohn (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am extremely, extremely pro-biased Essie.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. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with everything you wrote. But, that is not the rules of the game. Putting stuff like that in the introduction is extremely dangerous. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you maybe the only one that can bring this article home. I can only hope that my criticism was constructive. If it was not deemed as such then I apologize. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism is constructive enough, just I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't intending to put new stuff in but to take stuff out. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not feeling any love in this article for attributing to Robeson, what is based in this article, that Robeson was involved in the civil rights movement in the 1st half of the 20th Century. I did not, and sadly can not, do any in depth research of the CAA. Von Eschen says it was the most important aid effort to Africa at the time. I honestly have no concrete knowledge of what it did. It needs to be ascertained and determined if it is relevant to go in this article. I am certainly not going to call the good Professor from Columbia University inept. I would like to see that looked into.

Ok, of course i have become a bit of a "know-it-all". I just gotta chill and let u edit. But, please, I am beggin you, no 2 sentence paragraphs. Please. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean, it's possible to have a 2 sentence paragraph, but It would be just an absolute catastrophe to have the lead paragraph in this article to be only 2 sentences. I mean It would be an utter disaster. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We can have a longer paragraph! Let's look more into what the CAA did and write up the relevant sections, then take some of that back into the lead. You have got scholarly books I haven't got at the moment. I only took out "in the first half of the 20th century" because I thought it was obvious from the dates when he lived. But the earliness of his contribution to the civil rights movement is important enough to go into the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)