Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Photograph

Isn't that photograph by Carl Van Vechten, and not Gordon Parks? -- kosboot (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

According to its source, it was taken by Gordon Parks. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. -- kosboot (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lenin Peace Prize

It was called the Stalin Peace Prize back then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.173.81.159 (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union, Stalin and Communism

Quote from the above section of the article: "During his lifetime, Robeson always denied that he was a Communist Party member. But after his death, at the occasion of his 100th birthday in 1988..." If he was born in 1898, then his 100th birthday would have been in 1998, surely? Pavel (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. It was indeed in 1988, on the occasion of Robeson's 90th birthday. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Much Work Needed

The basic content of the article is balanced but most of it is out of chronological order and not cited properly or at all. I will, to my best ability not cite primarily from Duberman though his book is one of the most meticulously and detailed biographies of any American currently available and it has to be referenced as many of Robeson's other bios are out of print and/or hard to find. Huge and important parts of Robeson's history are missing as well (I added a link to "We Charge Genocide") PLEASE be patient as I flesh out and organize this article. It will be a lengthy and monumental but ultimately important edit. Catherine Huebscher 22:03, 25 January 2009 (PST)

That sounds great - the article does currently seem out of kilter, perhaps bearing the scars of past POV-disputes. I was bemused by the sentence:

"At no time during his treatments is he on record of mentioning his disillusionment with Communism or The Soviet Union nor throughout his life. Moreover, only a few sources out of thousands interviewed and researched by his biographer Duberman assert the oft cited claim by the mainstream media of Robeson's supposed embitterment over the USSR."

...when the "oft-cited" claim does not seem mentioned anywhere in the article. LeContexte (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I put THAT in and it is referenced! :)But yes I agree it seems very off kilter but it will take another day to connect that to another new section which will undoubtedly become a main article containing ALL the misconceptions, documentations, questions and truths regarding Robeson and the USSR. I work for a Robeson Committee but I have no issue with printing his advocacy for the USSR or any of the Stalin era facts so long as they are well documented. Too many anti and pro Robeson fans threw in too many POV's without cites and/or placed cited POV's in incongruous locations within the article. I'm trying fix all of it before Black History Month. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Labor Article on Robeson Linking to His Main page

Hi, In regards to my voluminous work Paul Robeson let me give you an example: Robeson was not a mediocre pop performer like madonna, he was actually famous for far reaching political and international causes and controversies that spanned close to a century of history. If you are not aware of him or have only recently became aware of him, he was one of the most famous people in 20th century world and US history. Celebs of much lesser stature like madonna have reams and reams of articles and connected articles simply for remixes and badly reviewd films that went straight to video. If there is a Miley Cyrus main article for a single album or song by then I'm arguing VERY strongly that there be an main article for Robeson's labor activism which was a well documented and crucial part of his history, US History, Labor history (here and in the UK especially London) and of Black history. I'm sure Tony Wedgwood Benn would agree with me that Paul Robeson's labor advocacy was central to his legacy.

I'm also going to argue for longer main articles on The Peekskill riots/Civil Rights Congress, Robeson's involvement in the Spanish Civil War and MOST importantly Robeson's history and involvement with The Communist party and the Soviet Union. Plus smaller main articles on Revels Cayton, Freedomways and many of the well known, well documented people connected to him who do not have articles yet and which desperately need to be on wikipedia. This is Black history month and this is the most famous black man of his era, I don't think an extensive body of information available on wikipedia about this man is too exaggerated a reality.

The labor article is far from over and will take a few days so please be patient. ThanksCatherine Huebscher (talk) 9:45, 1 February 2009 (PST)

I agree that Robeson was one of the most important African Americans of his time. With respect to the separate articles, you're taking exactly the right approach. See Wikipedia:Summary style: when an article reaches a certain size, sections of it should be split into separate articles and the key points summarized in the main article.

Keep up the good work. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I am not so great at the structure of page in regard to html and formatting but I think i can figure it out. I'm trying create a table of contents box so will go seek help. btw sorry I moved your USSR quote a few days ago, I had actually confused it. It really goes great in that section. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2009 (PST)

Feffer quote

An editor deleted this passage, saying, "David Horwitz, a very white and very conservative author has no connection to Robeson. No this is fake"[1]

• "When you return to America, you must speak out and save us." Robeson later in life regretted that he did not do so.

The material can be found in the book on Google, here. Granted Horowitz isn't the most objective writer. Is there a specific reason to think that it's fake?   Will Beback  talk  02:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Horwitz cites no sources, I've seen the book and when measured against NINE different Robeson biographers,Duberman, Foner, Robeson jr, Susan Robeson, Sterling Stuckey,Marie Seton etc etc that have all said Robeson expressed NOT ONE word on any record publicly or private that he felt shame about not helping Feffer OR about the USSR. a line like "Robeson felt shame his whole life.." is not credible. Robeson is not Madonna or a vanity Fair pop culture celebrity, his life is meticulously documented. His son Paul Robeson jr is the one whom he told his recollections about Feffer too Not Horwowitz! Horowitz is saying whatever he wants without proof. I have kept the section very balanced and I cite sources that actually had real sources. There are plenty of anti-communist references in that section to keep it 'balanced.' Please keep that fake line out it just takes down the stock of the piece. Thanks Catherine Huebscher 06:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the full explanation. That's good enough for me.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i am dedicated to showcasing every viewpoint about Robeson but false one. Here is another falsehood about Robeson from Horowitz who was attacking Eric Foner, one of the US's most accredited and reputable historians

"...Paul Robeson was never satisfied with his country. He was an icon (and member) of the American Communist Party, who received a Stalin Peace Prize from the dictator himself." -David Horwitz

BOTH of these statements are false, there is no CP membership record anywhere and he never met Stalin in person. The Peace Prize was given to him in DC at the Soviet embassy by embassy people. He would have been jailed under the Smith Act had that been true or the former been true...which gives me an idea...Catherine Huebscher 06:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a highwire act with trip wires all across.User:Ekem (User:Ekem) 7:39am, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Horowitz is in there now are you happy? I mean that in a nice way. I think DH is a low life but I still put him in there because he is a contemporary voice who has mentioned Robeson. It's a very fair and balanced article unlike previous incarnations of this page which were simply right wing people who hated Robeson fighting with leftists over how many POVs they could cram in without any cites. Once again, Robeson is not a pop music singer he was an intellectual giant and international figure, his page should have as many documented and well cited FACTS as possible for young scholars and interested older people alike. Any areas where their is pause for doubt must show the other opinions all well cited. Catherine Huebscher 07:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a quibble, but to me "contemporary opinions" implies "opinions expressed at the time". "Modern", "later", or "recent" would do a better job of saying that these are opinions expressed after his death. Also, section headings should be in sentence case, per the manual of style.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

Reading the first sentence, the maxim of keep it simple, stupid comes to mind. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but the fact that the introductory paragraph is one single run-on sentence is pretty astounding. How about we try and state the obvious, and then go on to detail? Steven Walling (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It actually is insulting and I think changing it would be pointless unless you seek o downplay Robeson's astonishing gifts as an unrivaled artist, intellectual and athlete. Robeson's achievements are of such they need to be showcased. None of his skills were lesser than the other. He was the greatest football player of his era along with many other things. Catherine Huebscher 09:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As a football fan I wonder about that. I know of his awards, but what are the stats, and comparisons to back the claim? The article needs facts, not gush from our resident Robeson groupie.

His acting strikes me as mediocre. Most of his directors wisely concentrated on his great singing voice - 'King Solomon's Mines' is one notable example of this. And though there is no video, I have listened to his 'Othello' on tape, and his performance seems to bring out a previously unsuspected comic potential in Desdemona's death.(To be fair, any Othello is at the mercy of his Iago; a too obvious villany just makes Othello look like an idiot for believing him. And Jose Ferrer's Iago is about as subtle as Snidely Whiplash) 84.69.173.228 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to downplay anything, I'm a huge fan. That said, the point of the article isn't to point out his "astonishing gifts as an unrivaled artist", even if I think that's true. It's to be a neutral, factual biography. But even more importantl,y it's terrible grammar to have one single sentence that runs on like that. Its totally unreadable. The point of an intro sentence is just to state the basics of who someone was, not their every accomplishment. Conclusion: those things don't need to be removed, just broken in to readable, grammatically correct sentences. Steven Walling (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, agreed, I can see you point. I thought you meant that some of his accomplishments would be removed from the lede or whatever it's called. I'll get on it.Catherine Huebscher 01:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Change photo

With some many great photos of Robeson in the public domain I'd like to suggest moving the main photo elsewhere. The main photo is unfortunately one of the only photos I've ever seen where you can't see him looking as radiantly handsome as he was mainly because of the lighting.Catherine Huebscher 10:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you find some public domain photos and then we can figure out the placement of the images. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Aspects of PR's life omitted and distorted of Str1977's edit

I will keep it short as possible! As I am on a different sleep schedule than the rest of you, I get here a few hours later.

1. Str1977 does not believe Robeson was a civil rights forerunner. He feels he was simply a supporter or transient figur who showed up once and awhile to events. Despite the fact Robeson was central to the Civil right congress, Anti-lynching, repealing the pol tax, desegregation of unions/military!!! He confronted TRUMAN!! what more civil rights foreunner could there be!? this is a common myth about Robeson created by decades of his erasure. Same about Robeson as a pan-Africanism and anti-colonialist. Robeson was a forerunner activist for both. Again, despite overwhelming documentation, he is not given any credit or his pioneering activism is grossly minimized.

2.Str1977 wants a thematic article of how the association with USSR negates all the civil rights, what he sees as "hypocrisy" or most the above seen in juxtaposition to the USSR instead of simply editing in the USSR material concisely and letting the reader decide. He wants the USSR front and center in the article's political section when it was simply one of many political events/causes in a vast life and one which has a sub-article!! Remember, the RIGHT used the USSR to negate Robeson's other political achievements and that can't be brought here. It is why no one really knows him to this day which given his vast fame is very odd-. Str wants a pov theme as to why the mostly white supremacist establishment and those who feared them like walter white/Wilkins hounded/positioned themselves against Robeson making it more "about the times" and "political naivete" than about what the facts say which is clear-total racism with "communism" as the excuse, yet that does not need to go into the article as a pov. the facts speak for themselves. eg: Seeger and MANY other whites were actual CP members and were never confined via a passport lifting. Huac never went after the KKK, neo nazi's etc.

3.The povs are now nearly all weeded out of my edit. More material is going back in and sub headings can change. But any complaints of Chronology by str77 are a smoke screen because Str sees Robeson incorrectly as just a " misguided singer who was rabidly into Communism during the cold war" and is missing key reasons for his persecution -EVEN WHEN DOCUMENTATION via FBI files, CIA files, congressional and state department records prove him wrong. Anti-Communist are rabidly fixated on the USSR material to the exclusion of reality and an unbiased article.

4.The religious stuff has become str's fixation and anyone who knows his history well cannot allow an ambivalent distortion of such a deeply personal thing that defines an entire life (especially when it did NOT) to stand. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, I can only wonder how you think you know so well what I want and intend. Little of what you write conforms with my thinking:

1. I don't believe he was a pioneer in the sense that he began it all and towers over everybody else. But I certainly believe that he was an important figure. I think you are overstating his status in basically every field. That doesn't mean that PR wasn't a great one in all these fields. But I am sure in favour of including any "he was the greatest ..." language, if properly sourced and attributed as an opinion. Such judgements are inherently opinions and not facts.

2. I don't believe that his association with the Soviet Union negates his achievements, be they artistic, sports or political. I just don't want to have the basic fact that he supported (whatever the details) that political system to be swept under the carpet under romantic notions of "socialist experiment". Again, my views don't go into the article - those of published, reliable sources do. And those of those who are reported in these sources, including those that opposed PR. All reported, non endorsed. Is that too much to ask for? You talk a lot about The RIGHT (TM) - I thank that's generalising too much. It wasn't just the right that isolated Robeson in the 1950s but a broad political spectrum. On the other hand, the sentiments you attribute to me are indeed voiced by some on the American political right. But being neither American nor a right-winger why should I care? Yes, they said "negate" on Conservopaedia and I thought it ridiculous. That HUAC went after Communists (and little after those other groups) might have something to do with the fact that the Cold War involved a Communist empire, not a Nazi one.

3. Your version still contains quite a few POV statements (Spanish Civil War as "fascism creeping" - historians tend to disagree with such simplistic statements, the pushing of MKULTRA theories in the health section, the terming the Soviet Union as "the Socialist experiment" etc.). And I never stated that factors outside of Anti-Communism did not play a role. However, what I oppose is lumping all of his opponents together, as if all Anti-Communists were also racist. And the controversy leading to his isolation in the 1950s clearly stemmed from his association with Communism.

4. You right on one thing. I have a fixation ... with accurately reporting what the sources are telling us and not turning it into the opposite.

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving forwards

Having reviewed the various comments on this talk page its more problematic than I originally thought. I first came here having spotted something at the RS notice board that triggered a long standing interest in Robeson. I can now see multiple personal attacks and a lot of bad feeling.

I think we need to put aside the behaviour issues for the moment and get some order into this debate. Firstly I suggest we look again at the structure issue, and then move onto content. I'd like to suggest that both the active editors stop changing the article for a few days while we sort this out - add an NPOV tag if you are unhappy with the current version don't edit war. So ignoring content issues would both protagonists lay out their proposal for structure with brief arguments then let the rest of us comment and review? --Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that you have just reverted to a long string of changes by Catherine after she first ignored and then blanket reverted my changes without even considering them (which I never did - I always had a look at her additions and incorportated most in some form) I find the "don't change the article" bit problematic. Still, this has to move forward somehow but I want to note that this a) there is no consensus to use "Catherine's version" and b) this is no way indicates that I agree with it.

Having said that, I will comment on the structure (but in a later posting also comment on the content), Catherine's version has come a long way from its extremely jumbled state. The structure is now basically chronological but it is still faulty:

• some sections are badly structured internally, e.g. Education lacks several sub-divisions. It is generally a good rule to have either no sub-sections or several. Right now, Columbia is given a strange prominence. Section "legal work" should not be detached from his law studies and given its shorteness doesn't merit a separate article. Neither does a single film (Body and Soul) merit a separate section.
• Catherine's version now overdoes the chronological aspect, leading to mostly trite section headers. I am all for chronology but to given that at different times, different aspects of PR's life predominated, a better division is also possible. Right now, his political development (which took place during his UK years - so no chronologial problem here) is totally ripped apart.
• Not only chronological back-and-forth is eliminated. Still, the stolen notebook (dated to the 1940s) does not appear in the context of "anti-communist suspicions" or the like but in his British years, his language studies. Without it, the section is pretty thin, making clear that it does not merit a separate section.
• Section "International acitism" contains a Soviet section that is not activism at all. POV issues here! The Spanish civil war is divided into two sections (also some POV issues!).
• The very interesting issue of how his politics developed, his views about the role of the artist doesn't appear at all. "The artist must take sides" is all well and good but that he though differently before that is not noted at all.
• The height of fame section lacks several things notable here. As it is parallel to the World War II period, his changing stance on the war is missing (oops, content again!) - the Soviet section basically only repeats what we had before.
• Section titles like "pioneering" are inherently POV. Lynching is then singled out and spread over two sections (including the inanely titled "Confronting Truman") whereas other issues and causes go unmentioned.
• The Civil rights Congress surely belongs to "Post-war politics".
• The Paris speech is senselessly detached from the Cold War, whose section then jumps back to the Trotskyists, which are part of his pro-Soviet attitude earlier. They without a doubt need to be mentioned side by side with his activism on behalf of jailed Communists.
• Stalin Peace Prize is merely mentioned as an item of criticism, when it is a fact. The bit about "conflicting accounts" is a wishy-washy reference to the Feffer incident. The HUAC bit is too detailed in comparison.
• Then comes the blacklisting and passport ban (both beginning in 1950) - after the the HUAC hearing in 1956 - and again totally detached from the row about the Paris speech. Various events during the 1950s are then given separate sections, which they don't merit. "Lost shepherd" again has to restate the Paris controversy due it's being detached from that. The USIE quote is selective.
• Omission from history books mixes several issues. The omission from today's books (as opposed to records being struck in the 1950s and the like) doesn't merit more than a line or two in this context.
• The comeback section has three entire section dealing with his Australia/New Zealand tour. That's way overdoing it.
• The health section is still the low point. It jumps back and forth between facts and theories about government involvement, giving undue weight and implicit endorsement to Robeson Jr's theory. Other theories (Strong, Marshall) are not mentioned at all.
• And then we have a section on birthday celebrations!
• The "legacy" section contains no legacy (Catherine is on record about opposing such a legacy section, at least if various views are mentioned) and I don't see how sub-sections are needed. If we have some, they should be either chronologically or thematically (I'd prefer the latter) - currently they are both (e.g. 1970s, Rutgers, Wales and Tomato).
• Another structure issue is issues/sections that are missing totally or worded beyond recognition from what the sources say, most prominently religion.
• and of course, the introduction is still way too detailed and has POV issues.

I will post a section dealing with "neutrality issue" sometime later on. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is mostly on content. Reading through it are you saying that you are broadly happy with her structure but want to add or delete some sections?--Snowded ^TALK 09:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Most sections, especially sub-section but also some of the overall section do not make a lot of sense. And structure is not merely about section but also about how the material is presented inside.

Though I have stated the issues above, here are the most glaring ones:

• Only one section per issue/event, not several.
• A clear separation of facts and theories on controversial issues like the health breakdown, with due weight being observed.
• Present related things together, e.g. Trotskyists next to his anti-anti-Communist activism. The string of events (which is both chronological and logical) "Paris - reaction - Peetskill - blacklisting - passport - lost shepherd - huac" has to the observed.
• Avoid repetiveness, e.g. the racism-free Soviet Union.
• There absolutely has to be a section that groups together the developement of PR's political thought and his stance on arts and politics. There has to be a passage about this complex religious views (an accurate, neutral one, of course).

I have to run now. Bye, Str1977 ^(talk) 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the material within a section is important. But at this stage, rather like writing an essay I am trying to get agreement on the major sections and sub sections (or at least options) so we can reach agreement. There is simply too much at the moment to deal with so step by step. Catherine, is it possible for you to say what TOC strucuture, given the comments above you would suggest then we have a straw man to work from --Snowded ^TALK 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then let me state the major sections (generally no sub sections noted, but I will say something about the content intended) I feel are needed:

• Family/Early life
• Education - including Rutgers, Columbia (elementary education go either in family or here ), I also suggest his short career in law be included in a section with Columbia, his first artistic forays during Columbia days may go in here too, right next to his sports achievements
• Marriage etc.
• Religious views (might also be included under the preceding section - it is not feasible to put them under family background since PR had views in his adult life as well)
• Sections covering his entertainment career (splits possible along thematic and/or chronological lines)
• A section on his UK years (this may be part of entertaintment career or a separate section)
• A section on his political development in the UK, including all the major issues discussed: anti-colonialism, trade unions (Wales included), Socialism/Soviet Union, Spanish Civil War incl. "The political artist"
• A section on his years after the return to the US, could be title "height of fame"
• His activism in the U.S. could be included into the preceding section as well, as a sub section - up until before the Paris Speech. Anti-communist suspicion should go in here as well.
• His troubles following the Paris Speech, with the proper sequence (as noted above). Also included here would be his activism at the time.
• His comeback
• His health situation
• Final years and death
• Posthumous

As indicated, there are various ways of how to group these major sections. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still working on including more material back in. I like the structure that is there because it is simplified and can easily be worked with. I'm still working and should be finished soon. ThanksCatherine Huebscher ^(talk) 7:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies guys having started this I have just being called into a client project that will prevent me being very active for a day or so. I do think we need to move this away from long threaded debates between the two of you (see sections below) to something far more structured in which points are taken one by one. It looks like that is going to take some work however. --Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just factored back in decent amounts of Str1977's edits after to show I will work with his contributions despite sourcing errors, factual errors and all the things that people face when jumping into a complex subject like PR. As someone who really knows the subject, the structure as it is very sound now and i think it looks VERY readable.Catherine Huebscher ^(talk) 7:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The structure is still faulty in many ways- issues out place (Trotskyist), separate sections for details with strange titles as "scholarship. Far from being "sound" or "readable". Not to speak of the misrepresentation of sources still extant, most apparent in the religious views section. I cannot help but tag the article as totally disputed as long as this misrepresentation endures. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalin povs

"Not if they were confined to a live outside party leadership in the Soviet Union of course, but if they travelled back and forth (as PR did)"

Travellled back and forth? Ridiculous! Richard Burton spent a great deal of time staying with Tito throughout his life and praising him. Robeson never even met Stalin. You want a pov push via Stalin when people can make up their own minds.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that this is anyway relevant to the article, but:

Yes, Robeson travelled back and forth between the West and the Soviet Union. Which gave him more opportunities of learning than, say, a acrigultural worker in a colchose never leaving Nowosibirsk. This is so obvious that I am asking myself why I have to explain this.

I don't know if Robeson NEVER met Stalin but he praised him nonetheless. And this is not simply about Stalin, who though the worst of the bunch (USSR leaders, that is) is often just the scapegoat of Soviet ills before and after him.

Burton and Tito are not relevant here. But Tito is whole different league in his actions, his personality and his political system. And if Tito saw through Stalin in the 1940s, why couldn't Robeson?

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So Tito who killed many, many people had more equanimity than Robeson about Stalin? Logic much? " whole different league in his actions" stuff like that statement is where I feel your problems judging history lies. I guess with you numbers of murdered innocents (like the Congo not being on par with the USSR because of an assumed lower body count) have to climb above a certain count to be "bad" and Stalin is always "the worst."

Robeson was not in the USSR often, he was in the UK often.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the Belgian Congo wasn't bad - certainly not Leopold's Congo which is often confused with the former and was extremely bad. Still, neither plays in the same league as Stalin. Numbers are one aspect. No, I do not think Stalin the worst, Mao and Pol Pot certainly outdid him. But neither Congo nor Mao nor Tito is subject of this article. Robeson and his connection to the Soviet Union is. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. The point was never whether Robeson was often in the USSR but that he was often outside of it and hence had better chances and greater freedom to learn about the not-so-great aspects of Communism. I grant you that not being affected by everyday Soviet life - whiche he never knew - he could also denounce any criticism as "fascist, right wing propaganda". After all, even in the year 2010 this practice is still being done by some. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims of pov and revisionist history by Str77 answered

So where in my edit do I call Robeson the "greatest" like Ali. Where? WHERE? That's you reading into his achievements as offered by the history itself. My opinions as a fan are not in there in laudatory language. I think in the lead you want to present accomplishments and a life as a survey, it should be vibrant. Stuff that was dramatic though and pov is now gone or will be gone if I catch more. You are claiming that I say in the article that "he began it all and towers over everybody else." WHERE? I don't. I mention the groups and the people he worked alongside as well. As this hugely famous person he stepped away from performing and became a full time political activist. Civil and human rights were his life for over ten years and performing was second.

Overstate what? He was as great and renowned athlete of the day as Pollard or Thorpe. Scholar and Lawyer are out of the intro. Are you now negating reams of history and rewriting it too??? Where do you have this right? You don't. He was famous as an athlete before he was a singer.

He certainly was a renowned athelete - but his fame overwhelmingly came from his artistic work, which in turn was the basis for his activism. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here we go again: "That HUAC went after Communists (and little after those other groups) might have something to do with the fact that the Cold War involved a Communist empire, not a Nazi one."

Wow. The Cold War also involved brutal lynchings, Jim Crow, intimidation of blacks and union members of all races, civil liberties violations and segregationist leadership and members of congress, not to mention world wide human rights abuses, rape of resources, thefts, colonialist thievery, ethnic cleansing of people of color on four continents. HUAC OPENLY supported white supremacy.

Some called for the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan to be interrogated by the HUAC. Martin Dies however was a supporter of the Klan and had spoken at several of its rallies. Other members of the HUAC such as John Rankin and John S. Wood were also Klan sympathizers. Wood defended the Klan by arguing that: "The threats and intimidations of the Klan are an old American custom, like illegal whiskey-making." Eventually Ernest Adamson, the HUAC's chief counsel, announced that: "The committee has decided that it lacks sufficient data on which to base a probe." John Rankin added: After all, the KKK is an old American institution." Instead, the HUAC concentrated on investigating the possibility that the American Communist Party had infiltrated the Federal Writers Project and other New Deal projects."

I mean come on! If you truly believe that "HUAC went after Communists (and little after those other groups) because it might have something to do with the fact that the Cold War involved a Communist empire, not a Nazi one" you have not read ANY cold war civil rights history. They never went after them WHEN we were at war with Nazis. In fact the US has NEVER gone after neo Nazis/KKK/hate groups in even a remotely close fashion/dedication as they have to Leftists.Non-government groups like the SPLC and lone people have done the leg work for them.

I thank that's generalising too much. It wasn't just the right that isolated Robeson in the 1950s but a broad political spectrum.

Revisionism. Who and what was this broad spectrum? Please? Isolated FROM is not the factor while ISOLATED BY is. Apart from liberals who were scared away eventually who else was it then? And who instigated his blacklisting and persecution? the daily harassment and surveillances that were ceaseless, that led TO the isolation itself? who took the passport away? who tore up Peekskill? You are reverting history no just this article.

I just don't want to have the basic fact that he supported (whatever the details) that political system to be swept under the carpet under romantic notions of "socialist experiment".

IT IS NOT SWEPT UNDER. The USSR is IN THERE it is just not the whole article and yes it 'was' an experiment when he arrived in 1934, less than two DECADES after the revolution. People can make up their own minds. The history is there.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War did not also involve all the things you mention. They may have existed side by side and at the same time. The is no inherent link between e.g. lynching and the Cold War. Frequently it involved alliances with less than good rulers in the Third World but you cannot lie their crimes directly at the feet of the U.S. You seem to be clueless about what "ethnic cleansing" actually is. And four continents? Give me a break! Where did HUAC support white supremacy? Are you making this up?

HUAC's objective included right-wing groups as well and, very seldomly, they concerned themselves with them. Note that those anti-subverversive acts were also directed against certain right-wing groups. That the international situation of the Cold War and Anti-communism at home are linked cannot be doubted. For the first time you actually make specific allegations about Dies. However, these are unsourced and appear nowhere in the article about Dies.

Robeson's isolation, in contrast to surveillance or his passport being taken away, was not a government action (and was the government right-wing at the time?) and if it had been right-wingers alone, it wouldn't have been so complete! Was NBC right-wing? All the recording studios and radio stations? Rutgers? The NYT? All right-wing groups, heh? I don't thinks so!

I never said the USSR is not mentioned but its nature is constantly swept under. If people can make up their own minds, why all this mitigating language. "Experiment" is the speak of Communist social-engineering. Apparently, when blacks in the U.S. are oppressed and murdered it is bad but if oppression and murder on a much larger scale occur in the U.S.S.R. it is not notable. This will not do! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Experiment" is now removed.You wrote:" (and was the government right-wing at the time?)"

Dies, Rankin, Bilbo, Hoover and McCarthy were openly white supremacists with anti-segregationist views. Truman nearly joined the Klan. You do the math. Rutgers sports were right wing/reactionary as are nearly all US sports franchises to this day. Many who were liberal could not risk it after Robeson was labeled --it was a matter of survival not helping Hoover. Go to a Robeson consert and the FBI took down your personal details, they threatened CHURCH foreclosures!! They showed up like the mafia and intimidated people. Go to a Robeson concert and lose your job. Agents are on record, film and photo doing this. PLEASE READ"

He certainly was a renowned athlete - but his fame overwhelmingly came from his artistic work, which in turn was the basis for his activism." The basis for his activism came from his experiences with racism of which he experienced plenty on the football field. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On the first count: good that it is gone. It was really an insult to all the victims.

On the second: With government I am talking either about the executive or, if we include all branches, the entire breadth of Congress. A few right-wingers cannot be the basis for government in its entirety being right-wing - that some Congressmen were right-wingers is a given. Rankin and Bilbo certainly were racist, I cannot judge what you claim about Dies and Truman and must take them as undemonstrated. I have repeatedly said that about Dies and thus far you have produce no evidence. That McCarthy was a racist is just bullocks! If nearly all are right-wing, the term becomes meaningless. Please do not scream!

On the third count You misunderstood me there. His fame as an artis was the basis from which he could make his views be heard. Had he became a unprominent lawyer in New York, very few would have given a dime for what Mr Robeson thought as very few people would have known him. Deplorable as that might be, that is a fact.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

His fame was based on FAME!! Which came from being an athlete FIRST. He was a star when he arrived in Harlem. His fame is NOT determined by when or how much he could align it with his political views!!You are seeing things through a follow orders/right wing perspective. I can see the agendas (and verifiable history!) on both sides.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion for Str1977/Edits added back in

Would you like to take on the Communism& Paul Robeson article seeing as that is where most of your concerns lie? And because that desperately has to be done and you have a strong back ground in the USSR's/EBloc history? myself and others will chime in with feedback, edits, critique and not revert without an in-depth discussion(s) hopefully. I do understand that you still have problems with the main article. I have worked tonight to add significant sections of your work back in and have noted them. I altered as little as possible. The CP material needs to be really staid and tepid with as little embellishment as possible. I know this because I also made the same mistakes you have with the material as it is SO volatile and one wants to "set the stage." Do avoid that at and please, if you are interested in helping to over haul the sub-article stick to as many of your Robeson books as possible and avoid the Glenn Beck anti-Commie stuff you've been using on the web. You will notice I don't use Howard Zinn or pro-Soviet authors or any CP stuff and if I did a few times it is mostly deleted.

Please note that most interested in Robeson's leftism will go directly to the sub-article. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can do that but in the end, a general perspective of the matter would have to return to this article as well. After all, it is one of the most important aspects, given that his troubles have a lot to do with him been charged with being a Communist.

The material doesn't need to be "staid" and "tepid" but it needs to be sourced. (Aside: isn't the "PR never was officially found to be a member of the CP an embellishment on the facts?) Sure, Robeson books play a central role but I cannot simply discount sources because of their POV. However, I do think that internet articles generally have a lower standing. And I anyway never used mere-opinion-formats like Glenn Beck.

Str1977 ^(talk) 09:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Really strong POVS like this should be avoided:

• "Actually, the group had run foul of an anti-Jewish purge ordered by Stalin in 1948;"

("Actually", and "run foul" doesn't work)

• "The differences, mainly the question of when Robeson found out about Feffer's situation, profoundly affects the interpretation of several events in Robeson's life.

(POV)

• As Robeson persisted, the KGB groomed Feffer and brought him to Robeson.

(narrative conjecture)

• However, Robeson's outspoken personality

(pov)

• Due to his blacklisting and isolation, Paul Robeson's legacy has often gone unnoticed'

(too soft)

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, a note on POV. What is to be avoided is POV pushing by sneaking in opinion as fact. That doesn't mean that POVs are to be avoided - if there is controversy there's controversy and then, various views have to be reported.

• What's the problem with "run afoul"? Certainly not a POV problem!
• The different accounts about Feffer have to be noted if Feffer appears at all. And given how the Soviet Jews issue plays an important part in his relationship to the USSR and since some view it as important in his health breakdown, the issue cannot be avoided. That it "affects the interpretation of several events in Robeson's life." is simply fact.
• "As Robeson persisted ..." is not narrative conjecture. It is FACT that Robeson persisted. It is fact that Feffer was in prison and was brought up to shape to meet Robeson. All accounts agree about this.
• How is "outspoken" POV? I don't see that Robeson was afraid to speak out. But I can also do without it.
• "Due to his blacklisting and isolation" - how is that too soft? What's your alternative? Is it not true that many people do not know about him because he was gone from TV, cinema, radio etc. for a decade? Str1977 ^(talk) 09:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, and please do comment on the structural issues as Snowded thinks we should deal with them first. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We never will agree if you think "profoundly effects" is not a pov! anticommunism is out of the health issues. I saw your sources for that and other things and they were fiction. SO MANY of your sources were hearsay and you took so much license and conjecture in your writing. I just read your entire pieces THREE times tonight. There are so many errors. You write very British/essay style and it does not work on an article that must stay 100% neutral. It just reads drama. Read more books about Robeson not antiCommie webstuff with titles like "marxist Dupes". Right now you barely know this subject. Catherine Huebscher ^(talk) 7:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1. It is a fact that the question of how much and when Robeson knew about the situation of Soviet Jews, affected a great many in the views about the man. Just consider Howard Fast, whose opinion of Robeson changed dramatically when he learned that Robeson had kept his (supposed) knowledge from him. Now, if Robeson actually did not have such knowledge, his view would have been different. Also consider various views about Robeson's health breakdown.

2. You call my version in health "fiction" - well, the material was mostly also present in your version, only in a jumbled fashion with a certain view being pushed down readers' throats. I merely edited it and added a few alternative views (one - Robinson via Duberman - you had added to another article).

3. But maybe you use the word "fiction" as you used it before on the "religious views", where you chose to address my sourced edits - worded very close to what the published, reliable sources said - does that mean that my version actually fits the sources. You are not in the position to judge sources as "hear say". That you don't like what some sources are saying is no basis for excluding them.

4. I take British essay style as a compliment. I think it a bit strange that you espouse "100% neutral" when your edits haven't even approached that figure from afar. Your version, I am afraid reads jumbled, dull and is mostly unreadable, riddled with also with idiosyncracies and formal erros like punctutation. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation is easy to fix while conservapedia bias as you have ruins work.

Robeson never expressed Anything publicly about "disillusionment" as being a cause for his health breakdown OR AT ALL-that is HEARSAY. All hearsay. The right wing of the US has painted him as such -incessantly. I have him on film happy, smiling and arriving back in the USA 1965 and the NYT lied the next day about how "broken he appeared and disillusionment of the native son" shit. If you were reading you'd see that his health breaking down IS what made him depressed. He had a deteriorative condition (are you reading?). With Ari Kiev now connected to five MKULTRA programs, the insulin coma that needs to be presented as well.

Howard Fast? I have the most recent films before he died in which Fast talks of PR being the "greatest", praising him etc! I don't use sources who did double speak on PR. or who magically reappeared during the centennial acting like they'd never slandered/dicounted him. These sources you are quoting are OLD or from right wing racist websites/blogs. "Profoundly affected a great many in the views about the man" IS A POV Key you are misusing/using word VIEWS. This is not Conservapedia. and if you knew this subject well you'd have realized the events have been so blown out of proportion by conservatives as way to tag Robeson yet again out of context. That is NOT what this article is about, deciphering views of how others see him regarding Feffer and setting the stage so people are led into the days of Stalin with right wing caution. NOR is it about putting what happened "in a context" as lefties do. Edit in the conflicting accounts without a lead in and let the material stand. You are not balanced about these events and you have bogus sources. Marshall was not in the USSR with PR during the 40's, he and Robeson fell out and PR Jr has discounted it. You surreptitiously do NOT publish the second part of Duberman's note regarding Eisenstein's sister being warned about Marshall being a fraud! Marshall the scum is not going in. Technically as the meeting is hearsay and conjecture it should not even be included if dolts like him who were not even close friends with PR at that point are to be included as SOURCES.

Catherine Huebscher ^(talk) 7:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson Category concerns

Can someone please tell me why is Str1977's sandbox coming up in the Paul Robeson section as an article? Is there a way to remove it or is it applicable per wiki rules? It assume should not be alongside articles as it is a personal edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Paul_Robeson

Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I worked on the article there and my draft of course include all the categories. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect that rings hollow. It does not sound like some default occurrence and it looks very tacky. An admin should be consulted to make sure you are not violating policy. You know it does not belong there.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't criticise other editors unnecessarily. This happens occasionally. You can ask at the helpdesk how it can be avoided. We encourage the use of sandboxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Judith, Str1977 I feel has been rude to me and has followed me from article to article-even unrelated to Robeson I have the right to ask questions and be wary. cheers.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're all friends again, then good. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for all your help and input.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

East-Berlin Robeson archives

The East Berlin Robeson archive was established in 1965. Robeson was a very popular figure in the GDR, where he received an honorary doctorate from the prestigious Humboldt University in 1960, along with some medal. [2] (in German). The idea for the archive came from some Victor Grossman, a journalist for GDR-radio. He is not on the photo in the article. Grossman, born Stephen Wechsler (* 1928), came to the GDR in 1952, when he went AWOL from the US Army, while stationed in West-Germany. V. G.: Crossing the River. 2003 (memoir).

The Visit-to-the-archive photo should either be dropped or a sentence or two added about it.--Radh (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Victor is a great guy.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Beyond the reach of Jim Crow "

Hi Judith, Please note that " beyond the reach of Jim Crow" downplays severely what Robeson and other blacks faced in the US. Jim Crow was in effect "officially" the South, an area in which Robeson rarely saw much of his entire life unless on tour or stumping for Unions (who could blame him!). The color bar was in effect without Jim Crow laws nationwide at the whims of white business owner, real estate agents, courts, hospitals etc. It was so much more than just segregation that blacks faced though. Lynches were rampant, the denial of the right to vote, to organize unions, to peacefully assemble and the grotesqueness in which blacks were caricatured in the media and in advertisements, Hoover's anti-Communist questionnaire asked "Do you have any Black freinds?" (I could go on and on). Institutionalized racism in the united states is historically accurate (though by default still down plays the terrible climate he was coming from) as Jim Crow was only a small part of the denial of civil liberties and human dignity for blacks by the US govt, states, media etc. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well yes I did downplay the impact of racism in the US. For a couple of reasons. One is that we link to articles on Jim Crow, so that readers who are interested in knowing more can click on the link. Another is that in Wikipedia's voice we must not take sides on anything that may be disputable. If this seems shocking to you, it is normal Wikipedia policy and you may need to read the policies again to decide if you want to be part of constructing an encyclopedia on those lines. Cases like this have come up many times before, so there is a specific mention in WP:NPOV.

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.

And there is other stuff clarifying how we can write in a neutral point of view about Adolf Hitler.

Using the article on Robeson to make people aware about racism in the US is coatracking, I'm afraid. Remember that Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs, however great the wrongs and however much they ought to be righted. There is the whole outside world for doing that. This is only an online encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You could not shock me Judith, it's not possible. Downplaying IS an intent to pov here an intent to pov under the guise of "neutrality" albiet unintentionally. "No institutionalized racism" is not "emotionally charged" dumbing it way down to simply "Jim Crow" which is neither historically accurate nor sound , shows poor history in perhaps one of the most important events in PR's life (going by HIS words not mine). "Lack of racism and racial segregation" is encompassing without leading the reader to an opinion or to the inaccurate (in juxtaposition with Robeson) term "Jim Crow." That would be bordering on fiction. To actually show sound historically accurate research is not "coatracking." I strongly suggest reading much, much more about him. Do note the Boyle and Bunie book (years of promise etc) is riddled with errors and is considered weak by many scholars.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've explained policy to you as patiently as anyone is ever likely to. We've reached the end of the road now. I'm taking this to WP:ANI. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going there too. And I've listened and worked to clean up povs that were here long before in was. This is not policy this about incorrect history which you entered in the article. It's like saying "Martin Luther King did not like the KKK because they "burned crosses.""Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC

• • "One is that we link to articles on Jim Crow, so that readers who are interested in knowing more can click on the link."

a Why link to Jim Crow when Robeson never lived in the South?!! can you see my point? With all due respect, you can't accuse someone of pov when they have corrected your factual error.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC

I didn't introduce the link to Jim Crow. I just took out part of the off-topic statement about US racism. I should have taken all of it out, of course. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul Robeson Edit warring, Attention Administrators

Hello to an administrator, we are currently dealing with the volatile subject of Paul Robeson's history. A subject who has a history riddled with misconceptions and lies put forth by the mass media/US power structure in-combination with an erasure from history due to cold war blacklisting as well as white washing of his Communist affiliations by Leftists. I'm in a Scylla and Charybdis situation as the majority of other editors currently trying to help have not done indepth research required to clear up the aforementioned misconceptions Robeson. Many want to paint in povs to "explain" his very controversial views. I now am being targeted by Itsmejudith who has already sided with two users with a history of behavioral problems on wikipedia (radh and str1977) and who have used/rationalized the usage of racist terms such as "nigger" and "Uncle Tom." Itsmejudith felt calling Robeson an "Uncle Tom" was fine because "Paul Robeson is dead." Str1977 "reworked" the article with a clear anti-Communist bias riddled with factual errors ("Carnegie Hall in the UK", "Robeson's Soviet sympathies", and other povs) then tagged the article and now has vanished. I am willing to go through sentence by sentence to clear up povs and any mistakes including my own. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 20 December 2010 (UTCCatherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC

This is more likely to be read by an administrator if you post it in the relevant section on WP:ANI. But you might want to wait for a bit and then refactor it because in this form it isn't going to help your case a lot. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not able to figure out/still learning the inner workings of how to respond or how to leave users a message when they are being discussed so this will have to suffice.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:35, 20 December 2010 (

Open up editing of this page. Copy your post to your computer clipboard (edit menu, copy or CTRL-C). Open WP:ANI for editing. Paste your post after mine (edit menu, paste or CTRL-V). Re-add your signature with four tildes. Anyway, I will post there to direct readers here. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine - while I am broadly sympathetic with the political position you are taking here, it is fair to say that you are just going ahead regardless and not working with other editors. I strongly suggest you work with Itsmejudith to agree a protocol for managing edits to the article and working with other editors. Its very difficult for other editors to interact with edits here due to the volume and the way multiple issues are put together. --Snowded ^TALK 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you completely. Despite the fact I do like Robeson, I was the first editor who did not whitewash or omit a lot of what liberals and the right feel is controversial/unflattering. My position is that you can't lead the reader. my mistake above was that I simply did not politely and briefly correct Judith's factual error and move on. "Jim Crow" is an error in how it was used with Robeson (he never lived nor spent much time in the south) and I mistakenly embarked a whole other realm of discussion that was not necessary.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:35, 20 December 2010

I am going to add a to-do list to the top of this page. If we can all agree on priorities it should keep down the level of conflict. Please feel free to edit the to-do list, as it belongs to all of us. When it's agreed, we should try and stick to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for it. Great idea, long overdue.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:25, 20 December 2010

POV issues from ToDo list

Can those concerned please start at the top of the article and point out povs they want removed or discussed?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2010

I suggest giving people a few days to do that, a small holiday from editing the article will allow things to cool down a bit. I'll monitor the ANI posting and this page when I am not at work. --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also, when I get a minute, I am going to do a purely routine task, and that is go through the whole article so that we have a notes section, where sources are given in Harvard format, followed by a referencs section where all the bibliographical details are. In so doing, I will make a close reading of the whole text and be able to see the stronger and weaker sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 4:45, 21 December 2010

Breakout suggestion

FWIW, I think the article needs some POV improvement, but honestly I think there should be a lot of structural work befopre that is even considered.

This is an extremely long article, bascially because it attemtps to be comprehesive both for Rosbeson's artistic career and political activism agenda. I would think that seprate articles titled "Paul Robseon's Artistic Career" and "Paul Robseson's Political Activism" (into which material from this article and Paul Robeson, The Soviet Union and Communism can be transferred) would be of great help. Specifically for the current POV dispute, I think it would limit the scope of argument tremndously, because there is little if any dispute about his artisitic career, whcih is over half this article. We could then limit review to a ""Paul Robseson's Political Activism" article; summary information witin the main article will tend to be less controversial.

IMO, Robweson's athletic career was limited enough that a separate sub-aricle on that facet of his life isn't really needed, but it's within the realm of reasonable discussion.

FWIW, while I still think that Paul Robeson Congressional Hearingse a separate article, I see no need to link/hatnote to it from the main article. But it would be a good hatnote witin a "Paul Robseson's Political Activism" sub-article.

Separately, the lead section to this article is WAY too long. While I don't agree with prior edits limiting this to one sentence, I think three small paragraphs would be plenty. Also, while there is no rule against it, in general lead sections do not contain reference footnotes. See Wikipedia:Lead section. BillTunell (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The POV problem endures. The article's length is not only due to relevant content but due to the choice to give detailed account of many things and even include irrelevant bits. Nothing against sub-articles in general (and that "his life was vast" is no excuse - others had vast lives too). And that the lead section is too long has been my point from the get-go, long before I even delved into the article's text further down. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions so much. The article is long (his life was vast) but breaking it up into two pieces would be a huge mistake and I have explained why I believe this to be so and do not support that. as the two were intertwined for over 30 years starting with Sanders of the river and he had many beliefs and activism not associated from Socialism that would then necessitate three articles as then another artcle becomes too long again... Two articles? Three? That I can't support and I feel it is a very bad idea. He's one man who needs to stay that way as a main article. I do support a single separate article on both civil and anti-colonialist activism.

Please point out any povs and thanks again.

• • The lead sentence and intro is now shorter.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. The coin had to drop. I see what you are getting at; a main article and TWO separate articles about the artistic and politics. Yes, an idea and a challenging one but a chance to make available so much more information on wikipedia.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not the solution as we had more than two sub-articles before and all of them still were messes. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your work which is mess incarnate so don't be so catty. He's not suggesting small articles but a main article and two large articles separating and detailing. the arts and politics respectively. Due to the duality after the mid 30's that does not seem feasible.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I am not suggesting the deletion of any content -- detail itself is not necessarily a POV issue -- just the organization of the detailed stuff into the sub-articles. BillTunell (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking pagination in two editions

Most of the references to Duberman's biography in the text, where a date is given, are to a 1989 edition, yet in the references we give a 1995 reprint and a 1988 original. I'm going to convert the references to Harvard, i.e. the simple form "Duberman 1989: 33", where 33 is the page number. Then the full bibliography reference should be to the 1989 edition. Is anyone in a position to check that this will not interfere with page references? If the 1995 edition is simply a reprint, then it shouldn't. Hopefully. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Similarly we have a discrepancy between Lloyd Brown's book, 1997 was given in the text, 1998 in the references. I've changed to 1998. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is simply a reprint according to my respective copies.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes things easier. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested alternative reference

Current reference #24 is a dead link. This speech by the Rutgers president would seem to be a good alternative for the information. We should perhaps also briefly quote it in the context of the postage stamp and posthumous honours. The tone is quite remarkable. It isn't often that a university president singles out one alumnus as the most illustrious ever. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

With Robeson that's not unusual or surprising. It should be referenced as you mentioned.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:45, January 2011 (UTC)

Philip Foner book

Is the 1982(?) text cited here the same as the one listed in the British Library: Robeson, Paul, Paul Robeson speaks: writings, speeches, interviews, 1918-1974, edited, with introduction and notes, by Philip S. Foner. London: Quartet Books, 1978. Physical desc.: xvii, 2 -623 p. : ill., ports. ; 24 cm. ISBN: 0704321955. Also published: New York : Brunner/Mazel, 1978.

I can't see why "centennial" should have been added to the title if it was published 1982? If it is a reprint then I will change the bibliography entry to the British Library one, and the pagination should be unaffected. But if there may have been any re-editing, expansion etc. then that obviously wouldn't work, and I would be concerned that we aren't giving the right info to someone who wants to track the book down in a library. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That above copy and the ISBN seems to be the same as mine. Agreed.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:45, January 2011 (UTC

Chronological structure

Views, please, on where the section breaks should be made in the 1940s-1950s. I am of the opinion that we need to deal with all the wartime activity first, then the post-war activity. This is because readers may come to this article already having an interest in WW2, perhaps with very detailed knowledge of the period. I would like it to come out more clearly how important Robeson was in WW2 entertainment, and make it possible for readers to situate him alongside other major figures they may have heard of.

Post 1945 the whole world political and cultural scenes changed. It is a major rupture point in any serious C20 history. Many readers will also know how American politics shifted between 1945 and 1949, from post-war liberal euphoria into the cold war.

I don't yet have a view about where we should break in late 1940s, early-mid 1950s. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The public rupture point for Anticommunism vis a vis Robeson started as early as 1942 and he was under heavy surveillance as early as the late 30's. The liberal euphoria was more of a collective nationalism on the part of white Americans. With all due respect, it is not a good course to assume how much readers will know and why they'll come here. One can only assume that the majority of people have never heard of Robeson and not let that influence anything. Robeson's politics and his artistic history are largely intertwined. I have a few ideas of how it be in proper chronological order, ideally the dates should stay in due to so many events, causes and so much activity. I'll put it in writing.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:45, January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from the FBI records we link to he was under surveillance in 1942. I would like to see that stated from a secondary source. Of course I agree that we are writing for a range of readers with very different background knowledge. 1945 is still a major turning point in the 20th century, whether or not it marked a career break for PR. The war was over, UN founded, troops home. It is a natural break for all sorts of articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Secondary source other than the actual FBI files themselves? Sorry, I don't follow. :)Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The actual files are a primary source. We can link to them but not use them as our main source. I see that this is covered by both PR Jr. and by Nollen. Either or both of those would be fine, and help us to place the FBI reports in context. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh sure, I see what you mean now by secondary.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Another factor is the fact that 1949 was non stop time of events, controversies and ultimately the major turning point. Perhaps one section just for 1949?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fine. And it is an obvious topic for a spin-off article, because there are many other cases where there is an article on one tour by a musician or group. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Brooks Atkinson and "Broadway

I have placed a POV notice on the sentence that states that Brooks Atkinson made a pejorative remark about Robeson's Broadway Othello. While it is true that Atkinson does not praise the performance, there is nothing whatsoever in the book "Broadway" (which I own) that suggests that Atkinson criticizes Robeson out of bigotry or any bias against his political beliefs. AlbertSM (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh of course not! I own the book too and it is nasty. Pejorative is what it is and for how well known Robeson was in the theatre it is an obvious nod to Blacklisting to have only one sentence which is why I used the secondary source. It has been reworded now. Neutrality tag removed.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 4:45, 13 January 2011

This still needs attention. Atkinson's book is as much of a secondary, and reliable, source for this article as a book by "Editors of Freedomways". (I was going to see in due course whether we reference that book properly, with authors matching those in library catalogues.) We need to reference Atkinson's book itself, perhaps quoting the exact sentence so that the reader can judge exactly how pejorative it is. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So I just linked to Atkinson, and see that he was "captivated by Mao", was Moscow correspondent of the NYT till 1947. Quite clearly he isn't your run-of-the-mill cold warrior - the solution is to provide as many links and references as possible so that readers can work out what was going on. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He was run of the mill though. Plenty of CP members or fellow travelers became anti-Communist, that was actually very ordinary if you read up on the US Left. This is not about whether not he was even an anti-communist. After having a very long and ground breaking career PR was only mentioned once, negatively in reported "indepth study." Other black artists are mentioned who did an 1/8 of his work or even less. Freedomways cited it.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 4:15, 14 January 2011

What's at issue is whether we can use Freedomways to interpret what Atkinson says. I think probably not, but it's not clear-cut. Atkinson's views on Communism were clearly complex and probably changed over time, and in any case are not relevant to his standing as RS for this article. I would be interested to read further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

??? The wording is fine now.How hard is it to interpret ONE sentence? One sentence says it all. I think it needs to stay in, it was sourced when PR was still alive and still being blacklisted well into the 70's. please hear what I'm saying: this about Robeson missing from history books and records books. We do not interpret the motives or the political values of those who omitted him when it is not clear (unlike the NHL which WAS very clear as to why and which will be going in). We just explain where he's missing in juxtaposition with his career achievements. This helps to explain why few have ever heard of such a hugely, hugely famous 20th century historical figure.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 2:45, 14 January 2011

Atkinson's book is reliable for the quality of Robeson's performance in Othello. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Atkinson's book is also an example of large volumes of history relevant to Robeson's career from where he is missing.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 4:15, 14 January 2011

The New York Times article currently referenced early on says that Robeson was written out of history. That is a good source. Your interpretation of the amount of space Atkinson devotes to Robeson isn't a good source. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another potential source for this article is Hazel Rowley, Richard Wright: The Life and Times. 2001, University of Chicago Press. Preview in Google Books shows that Brooks Atkinson gave a rave review to Orson Welles' production of Wright's Native Son, also endorsed by Robeson. Rowley's book unpicks the history in a scholarly way that we ought to be aspiring to in this article. Wright's and Robesons paths crossed on more than one occasion. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC2 documentary

There's a sentence about a BBC2 documentary in the section titled "Omission from history books":

In November 2010, BBC Two premiered a documentary on American social movements entitled American Dream: Plenty and Paranoid, with interviewee and Robeson family friend Pete Seeger, alongside extensive footage of the Peekskill Riots, but included no mention of Robeson.

The reference is the documentary itself. That's a primary source. We need a secondary source that talks about Robeson's absence. Please see WP:PSTS, a section of WP:NOR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know what it is malik, I'm working on getting a statement from the producers of the show. Peekskill was not a Pete Seeger concert (he sang two songs) and its set up as if the mobs rioted at Peekskill because of Seeger soley. I do wish and hope you are also giving attention to other articles. I see unsourced material on major articles and povs all the time.Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 3:28, 14 January 2011

Hi Catherine, no statement from producers of the show will help with the statement in this article. The documentary film makers made the editorial decisions that they made, using whatever criteria were in their minds. Documentary films leave information out and include information on idiosyncratic criteria all the time. Say a reliable source reviewed the documentary and said it was a shame that Robeson wasn't mentioned, then that might be included. But if no-one else - independent - has said that, we can't draw any conclusions that documentary at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but "idiosyncratic criteria" is not what this is about. It is very easy for people to say "Robeson was not really THAT famous so how could he be erased?" when the very entity that erased him is where we look for virtually all sources! This is like taking Gram Parsons and making Altamont or Woodstock his concert alone. The problem we are having is that you are not realizing how famous Robeson was nor the singular way he was targeted that makes it necessary to research and document his erasure. The fact that Freedomways journalists were the only ones who made a relatively comprehensive "list" of how does not diminish that fact. If the producers issue a statement then it is absolutely in keeping with Wiki rules.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:38, 15 January 2011

Please don't tell me what I'm aware of or not aware of. If you get anything back from the documentary producers, post on this talk page and we'll see if there is anything that can be included. I am certainly giving attention to other articles, as you can see from my contributions record. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson: The Great Forerunner

Paul Robeson: The Great Forerunner is a collection of articles about Robeson that had run in Freedomways magazine. It is practically the only source for the entire "Omission from history books" section. In fact, nearly all the footnotes point to a single article in the book, "Paul Robeson: Black Warrior" by Paul Robeson, Jr. (pp. 3–16)

I know that Robeson was "erased" from American history, but surely we can find scholarly sources that say so. Doesn't Duberman discuss this? (Sorry, I don't have my copy handy.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not "practically the only source." That is one of the best source readily available and I did use sources from Rutgers scholars in the GF not just PR, Jr's essay, who IS a scholarly source. He cites clear examples. Duberman has other references like the Howard University's entire civil rights archives having no mention of Robeson and the CFHall of Fame saying "we only honour men who care about the country." As does Dr.Wright and Foner plus eye witnesses in documentaries like Uta Hagen. I'm still working on that section and adding more references and material.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 3:20, 14 January 2011

First, it is cited in 7 out of 10 footnotes. (Another note is Atkinson, a primary source.)

Second, Robeson Jr. is no scholar. He is his father's son, and his credibility is called into question when he makes outrageous statements such as these:

• [My father] was also one of the greatest football players of all time.
• Those who run the Hall of Fame have excluded Robeson from it because they uphold the shameful tradition of the most reactionary segment of the U.S. ruling class.

As I wrote, we need credible, scholarly sources for this section. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall change the references so they refer to Robeson Jr.'s essay in the Freedomways collection rather than to the book as a whole. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

None of that is disputable if you know the history of the US, sports records, Robeson etc. I'm also baffled as to why you've wasted space here quoting what I did not reference. But hey, if Jr., who has published two well respected books on his father AND who's interviews comprise LARGE potions of Duberman, is not a credible reference then ALL of Itzak Feffer can go as he is the only credible source with any indepth knowledge who has gone on record. I would be happy to delete it all. You can't have it both ways Malik, sorry!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:20, 15 January 2011

Catherine, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Robeson may have been among the greatest football players of his time, but he was by no means one of the greatest of all time. We may be forced to use Robeson Jr. when he is the only source about an event, such as the business with Feffer, but in my view he should never be used when scholarly alternatives are available. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Save the vulgarity and water sports references for others, I NEVER QUOTED THE FOOTBALL QUOTE from Jr. so why are you even mentioning it? Why waste the time? " We may be forced to use Robeson Jr. when he is the only source about an event" And those scholarly sources have used Paul Robeson, Jr. as a source across the boards. Duberman is sourced by nearly ALL scholars as he was the first scholar to go into what was then uncharted Robeson history. Paul Robeson, Jr. CHOSE him as a biographer and gave days worth of interviews and material. Essie diaries compromise portions of the book as well if you read the notes on sources in Duberman.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2011

• • "Robeson may have been among the greatest football players of his time, but he was by no means one of the greatest of all time."

How do you even know Malik? Going by the words of sports coaches and writers he rates at the top with others. Is that what you now claim to be? an expert on sport's history above some of the most well respected coaches and historians like Walter Camp!!? If the game shifted in rules, plays and clothing etc how can you even make that claim as an amateur historian? Why even bother when I never referenced it? The point is that PR Jr uses specific examples that show very clearly the omissions of journalists and historians.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2011

Malik, can you let us know the author and essay title of the material around page 180 of the Freedomways collection. Thanks.

Catherine, some of what you have said above reveals a misunderstanding of our sourcing requirements. Paul Robeson Jr writing on his own is a less than perfect source, simply because sons aren't expected to write objective biographies of their fathers. Paul Robeson Jr interviewed by Duberman is quite a different matter, because Duberman has considered the information and decided how to present it. The distinction is crucial for our purposes. Even Duberman's biography, though well reviewed and meeting reliable source criteria, does not necessarily have the last word on everything. If at any time it happens to be contradicted by other sources that meet our criteria we need to present both views, juxtaposed with minimum intervention on our part, so that readers make up their own minds. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

"A Distant Image: Paul Robeson and Rutgers' Students" by Eugene H. Robinson (pp. 178–188). Portions of the book are available at Questia and at Google Books. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

/* Omission from historical records */ blacklisting in chronological order

It looks very poor, placed within the Legacy section and calling the section "accounts" which is inaccurate as we don't call you US sport RECORDS, "accounts." Even worse, that removes the historical reality that in the 1950's, during the passport ban, the blacklisting and the omissions began. His blacklisting can't become some kind of afterthought, this was a serious part of the Cold War hysteria therefore it takes place in the Cold War. If one reads extensively about Robeson this is more than clear.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This section deals with Robeson's place in history (duh!) and falls outside the chronology of his life. It properly belongs in the Legacy section of the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Duh?" To me you don't seem to respect this subject (or Malcolm) beyond sound bites. A second section about blacklisting relevant to the 50's during the ban, should go in then and the blacklisting into the 60's and beyond should go into legacy. Happy Dr. King Weekend. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 2:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson Portal

It took a long tome and the font needs to be cleaned up. I've never created one so I have no idea why I can't get back in! Any help is appreciated. It was long overdue and it can help with pulling material off the main article and to putting more indepth material on wikipedia. I included the most widely referenced speeches, essays and discs. I'm not tied to any format or even choices of links.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Catherine. That's not a portal, it's a navigational template. I'm going to move it to Template:Paul Robeson. That way you can add to the bottom of relevant articles by typing {{Paul Robeson}}. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dyer

Ought we not to be drawing extensively on Richard Dyer, Heavenly Bodies: film stars and society, 1986 Macmillan Education/2004 Routledge? Paul Robeson, Judy Garland and Marilyn Monroe are its three case studies. Academic film criticism. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• • If you read it you'll see it's interesting but mostly pretentious third hand sourced with a few errors- even in the second 2004 edition. He's all about Vachel Lindsay style primitivism when it comes to Robeson (his body was the "nobility of the black race") It was sourced for a few of the obscurer films in the filmography. If one wants to flesh out the films more it would work I guess. Scott Allen Nollen's 2010 academic criticism "Paul Robeson:Film Pioneer" is far superior as he indepthly looks at each film via a tight in depth narrative biography of Robeson without psychoanalysis and pretence. He catches important details that many film historians on Robeson miss.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vgy4V_kZr84C&printsec=frontcover&dq=robeson+film+pioneer&source=bl&ots=WF8NOGYIKO&sig=mb_C2jyMdXyDA-ESMTzEkRcR6Cg&hl=en&ei=It8zTdfhJpP6swOiwqyvBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Still RS. Academic source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

He's Professor of Film Studies at Kings College London. If you have a problem with it, go to RSN. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know all about him. He's prestigiousness incarnate.It should be included in the bibliography of course. I meant just please double check when using it for historical material/sources as some facts are off.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:13, 23 January 2011

Communism/Socialism

Switching "Socialism" to "Communism" is a prime example of Radh vandalism. Robeson supported both emerging Communist countries (USSR, Vietnam) and socialists countries (Ghana, Congo etc etc). Both were/are considered under the umbrella of "Marxism." A racist/Anti-Communist view like you have radh, is NOT asserted here, you just want a fight. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source needed for Embarcadero memorial

Google mainly shows up Wikipedia mirrors. Looking for something independent - San Francisco city tourism pages? Also, I would like to see the Bay Area Robeson pages replaced with better sources, as they are not independent. Searching for better sources for memorials in the UK was more straightforward, finding e.g. Evening Standard, TES. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

They get their information from the BAPRCC and the Paul Robeson Foundation, so does Huffington Post!! Please, THE GUARDIAN? "independent?" That's nice fantasy but no media outlet is, The BAPRCC paid for nearly half of the monument so they are a 100% legitimate source. Balaji's books has errors as does Boyle and Bunie, I suggest buying a copy of Duberman or Artist and Citizen if that's where you are getting you material.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-03-29/bay-area/17167241_1_spanish-civil-war-international-force-monument.

We can get an official statement from the Bay area VALB post.PR's epitaph is superimposed upon a large image.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ari/2385178213/in/set-72157604380830338/ Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Independent source" has a particular meaning in Wikipedia - formally independent of the subject. Are you interested in getting this article up to Good Article standard, or even Featured Article? If you are, we will all try and work together to achieve that. It means working with people you don't agree with, and referring to Wikipedia criteria. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be called formal and be part of wiki policy but it's not. it is just a label. I have the sources on my material that are viable. You need to be checking facts like wherever you got "Ossie Davis" at the Hansberry funeral against more sources. Remember that before the late 80's, Robeson history was 100% uncharted so MANY misconceptions and factoids still exist. like self exile in Russia and CP membership etc many of those factoids are found in British papers and on the BBC.If you want to split hairs and waste time over 100% verifiable facts like the monument then you should be asking yourself the above questions not me. I feel there is simply more important material to verify. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Catherine, there is no deadline, so we're not wasting time by looking for reliable sources. Sources related to the monument aren't considered reliable sources, nor are photographs. I'll try to find something, but neither the Chronicle article cited in the article nor the one cited above say anything about Robeson. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So an official statement from VALB, eye witness pics which are easy to get means nothing but anyone who writes for some no name paper like the Daily Star does? if those are the rules then its chilling that this is 7th most visited site in the world! but YES, rules are rules. what format does the VALB "proof that Robeson is in the monument source" have to be in?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I cannot see, that this article is much more neutral than before, which is not surprising given the license C. H. gets. So a neutrality warning might be in order (this time perhaps not vandalized by our Neostalinist bully)--Radh (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you back at the article. An NPOV check would be very helpful at this stage. Rather than just tag, would you like to post on NPOVN for more eyes? Do we need an RfC on any particular issue? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Radh, keep your stalking and nasty little assertions to yourself- you are a racist bully. "Neo-Stalinist?" Look in the mirror. If you have POV problems then go through what bothers you LINE BY LINE and WORD BY WORD. Don't tag and vanish, instead actually follow through and give examples. For months you've just sat back and complained.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Judith, just in case you were going to, I don't want a lecture on personal attacks and good faith after you just let the nastiness of self avowed racist Radh go with a typical welcoming greeting. Seriously.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no point. Just going straight to ANI. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodman, Democracy Now source

Before I convert the Amy Goodman ref to Harvard, I thought I would check what people think of its status. It is a radio interview on Democracy Now. My instinct is that it as reliable as radio interviews normally are, i.e. good for reporting the view of Paul Robeson, Jr., and should be attributed in that way. But would be interested to read views of those more familiar with radio journalism in the USA than I am. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly better than the world service which called him a "simple Negro" a few months ago! Other sources exist for that material such as Nollen and Dr. Wright.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

New Breaks

You can't compress that much time under Great Britain. I doubt if anyone editing has even read an entire bio or if it is all just cherry picking off the net. Which books have been read in their entirety?Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

Fine to break it at some point - 1934? I'm working with both paper copies and internet-accessible sources. Are you going to apologise for calling me a racist, by the way? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when Catherine was going to use her old chestnut: "I've read 27 books about Robeson and you haven't read any, so why are you monkeying with my article?" — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

Yeah dude, like actually reading up extensively on a subject, especially one which so much misinformation and controversy exists around,is like a dire flaw for a historian to have.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The internet apart from downloading entire books is not going to be giving a proper biographical overview (much less indepth) because book previews are not complete. You can double check some references but many of the bios on Robeson via the net have too many factoids. He made a transition from artiste to socialist during the 30's and that needs to be signified. One long stretch does not seem to work.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

2 issues being discussed here. 1) what sources are we using, 2) how to cover his politicisation in the 30s. On 1), this really ought to be a doddle of an article to write. Duberman's is a thorough and well reviewed biography. I don't have it on paper at the moment. You do and Malik does so as long as there is a basic amount of trust it should be easy to add info from it. It's in Google Books preview so if need be I can check that any particular bit is summarised properly. Then there are many other reliable sources to supplement Duberman. Good biographies of figures he interacted with are an obvious choice. On 2), section break in the mid 30s is fine, go for it. The 1934 Albert Hall concert and radio broadcast is a fascinating event, and I think probably notable enough for its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. "The Artist Must Take Sides Speech." Where is Duberman on Google books? I thought his publisher made it unavailable for preview? I would like to see it please. Thanks Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk1:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

School of African and Oriental Languages

I have to run but will put in more references later today that document the multiple languages he took in tandem with being self taught language scholar. He did not just study Swahili at the school. Remember many institutions erased his achievements or distanced themselves from him. Duberman, Nollen, Robeson, Jr. are better sources to go to than websites that are maintained by web people pasting stuff up, not historians.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

This is RS since SOAS has his student record. The school is proud of him to the extent that it has named a hall of residence after him and refers to him as their most illustrious alumnus. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What is RS? I understand what you are saying but that same period he was studying other languages under the SOAS auspices. His diaries during 1933 , his application at another African language school proves this. That section needs to be fleshed out more as it is. He was also meeting with native African speakers studying languages who were going to school in London as well as Asians at the same time. There were exchanges over languages. Duberman stresses that this period is not hugely documented and I'm working on all available sources.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

Official web info from SOAS is RS, reputable uni. If you find RS for him studying other languages, please add. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Judith: Your content and structural edits are making the article look unreadable.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

Anyone else think so? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No. In fact, you've been doing a great job of putting the article in chronological order and otherwise giving it shape. Kudos. — Malik Shabazz&n.bsp;^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Malik, I put the article in chronological order not Judith. what a false joke that is for you to write that! It was done for her and all she did was remove breaks! You've sided with anyone who's in opposition to me-its really transparent and foul even if they are nasty stalkers like Radh and I GET IT. OK? You are totally bias! I'm still making changes because it looks unreadable with so few breaks and it shows weak knowledge of the subject and does not work.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

There need to be more breaks. Also things like the "Robeson was the first to play Othello on Broadway" is not structurally sound. It negates that he was not only the first to play on Broadway but the first to play with an all white cast in the 20th century-anywhere. Why as that ever changed? Lynching and segregation is not simply viable under the nebulous term "abuse" in the US it went into the denial of basic human and civil rights. If you are going to change wording be really be sure about Pre-civil rights history and cases.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

SOAS sources I mentioned are now in. There are multiple factual errors in the tribute essay and most of it is from an older wikipedia edit of this article.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

Catherine, it matters not one whit under whose auspices he studied. It's meaningless trivia. Why mention it at all? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The facts are not trivial in this case. Fleshing out the linguist aspect is important. His scholarship is not deemed scholarship in the eyes of historians unless he is connected to a prestigious institution. He was studying other languages and dialects at the SAOS beyond his enrolment card.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk1:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not writing a history book, we're writing an encyclopedia article. Why does it matter to the Wikipedia reader? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Catherine rearranged the article broadly in chronological order and I have been tidying it up so that it is fully chronological. Anyway. It's obvious what actually happened at SOAS (School of Oriental Studies, at the time BTW). He enrolled for a course in phonetics and Swahili. I'm not sure what kind of courses were offered at the time, presumably he took a short and/or part-time course, anyway one or two subjects is the normal enrolment. Then, while he was studying, he took the opportunity to start some further languages. The African students he met could well have offered to tutor him informally. The SOAS sources are good enough, but if there are better ones please replace. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dubious Benn quote

Tony Benn used "gotten"? I don't think so. Of course a source is needed, a transcript or video on a site other than YouTube. I am looking at the Good Article criteria, suggest we all do, and get rid of all the remaining unsourced statements.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unsourced?" it's on the Here I Stand dvd, which is NOT you tube and

is RS. I'll watch it again. A (sic) might be appropriate? it is an interview with the actual person.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

He never said "gotten", I can assure you. If it sounds on the tape he did it is a problem with the recording. But there is a further issue. I don't think we have space to go into what Tony Benn said about him, unless it is some point that no-one else has ever made. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's removed. As you mentioned it did not fit in anyway.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War/Robeson article

This is the key transformational period and event and that's why it needs its own article which it had until it was bullied into being deleted by anti Communists with a clear hatred of the brigades. The article I put up originally was more of a narrative and not well sourced nor written. It had too many povs. Ideally an entire new article needs to go up to cover his association with the VALB and IBs.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I said I thought the 1937 Albert Hall concert merited an article in its own right. So I looked to see whether there was already such an article. And how such an article would fit with other articles on the movement in Europe opposing Francoism. I looked at what we have on Spanish Civil War. Now, there's lots on the war per se, and a main article about international involvement in the war, i.e. the International Brigades and also pro-Franco international involvement. But, big but, we don't seem to have a main article on Save Spain. And it's not something to rush into creating, it needs care to see how historians have treated it. So I am looking at that now, and hopefully it will then be possible to situate PR's role in the movement alongside Picasso's and others'. Please do not again try and define other users' political positions. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point but I did not have to define them as Str1977 and Radh were clear about their views from the start. They are/were anti-Communists and anti-Left. It is a statement they made, not a judgement.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

And? It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which includes anti-communists. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And if they are going to dump articles and stalk me I'm going to speak out and not just take it like a good little woman.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Stalking isn't allowed. You can complain. As for editing for a while then moving away, you might want to ponder on where Snowded went. Is he anti-communist too, in your book? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Snowded was very helpful as are you and others. he may have become tired of the drama which is understandable.Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk) 8:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC

Apology to ItsmeJudith

Hi Judith, I am very sorry that I unfairly lumped in with editors that I have had issues with, upon reflection I don't think you have written anything conniving nor racist on here ever. I appreciate all your help in making this article that many of us care about so much better. I hope to continue to improve the quality in working with you and others in a peaceful and constructive manner. Best wishes and peace to you.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. We will all carry on working together on this article. See message on your talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Great source for Australian Aboriginal connection

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Passionate+Histories%3A+Myth,+Memory+and+Indigenous+Australia/1271/ch08.xhtml Well researched and written, going to draw from it. Whole book downloadable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I know I've seen that-love it. It is just fabulous as are many sources from AUS and NZ. Looking forward to the documentary footage being available internationally at some point. It represents the last chapter of PR's full blown career as an entertainer and activist.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom/Great Britain

Any one want to weigh in on that change? All of the Robeson books reference Great Britain not the "UK." Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hardly matters. UK includes Northern Ireland, but if PR didn't go there, it's irrelevant. He did go to Wales and Scotland so using "England" would be incorrect and insensitive. "Britain" is better than Great Britain - the Great is only there to differentiate it from Brittany. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok sounds good as PR loved the whole of the isles.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:25, 29 February 2011 (UTC)

Article size

The article has 83K of prose. That's a lot of text.

Yet every effort to edit down the article is met with responses along the lines of "This was huge deal, needs more information not a hacking". Does anybody have any suggestions? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

Yes, we could start looking at a format similar to The Beatles were the main history is broken up into separate articles focusing on the most reported on subject matter. Robeson is a major historical figure so of course it is going to be big and many events were huge in the media even if few know of him today. MLK's page has a "consider breaking this article up" thing when you go to edit. Lots of long articles exist as is.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 1:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about a main sub-article Political views of Paul Robeson? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It would not work at all. There is a section for Communism because so much controversy and misinformation exists around it and because it was so unique for the era given his global fame. If you read extensively on him, his politics are CLEARLY woven in with his art from the mid 30's onward so it is wiser to break up his historical chronology into separate articles focusing on the periods with the most activity which for him is specifically the mid 30's to later 50's. I would agree on separate articles for Trade Unions, Pan-Africans/anti-colonialism, Civil rights etc but to put it into one place would just create another huge, huge article.Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk

Anyone else have an opinion? We did say that we would have a full discussion about the sub-articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it I was incorrect, it SHOULD be done and perhaps it would be very helpful. The Communism article could be deleted (allow those of us editing to save the information first please) as much of it is not really salvageable and the title in and of itself is povish. The Feffer and concert material should be covered in a separate "1949 article" as it was a tumultuous and transformational year for him. CP affiliations, Civil rights, anti-Imperialism and Pan-Africanism can all be in one article or something like that? Catherine Huebscher (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What I propose to do, then, is to move Paul Robeson, communism and the Soviet Union or whatever it is currently called, to Political views of Paul Robeson. That will make sure that the page history and talk page history are kept. Other info, e.g. about his Civil Rights views, can be added to flesh the article out. Does anyone have a different idea? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great idea and then the main article can lose some much needed volume plus the other necessary/good reasons to do this.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The article about Robeson and communism strikes me as a POV fork and against policy. But something a little more neutral like "political views" would allow for more balanced coverage. Ideally we'd have just one article, but I understand there's a lot of topics here that need good coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting essay re 1920s

I've been looking at the 1920s sections, basically because I am intrigued with the question "how did he get his break in showbiz"? I think the article could shed more light on that question, which is often important to readers. I found this essay. Although it may be a tertiary source, it's well referenced and well written, and gives a different picture of Robeson's first performances to that currently in the article. It seems that the productions had greater international significance than we imply (first real break for Eugene O'Neill too, involvement of Mrs Patrick Campbell in production as well as just acting). Can we use the source? Can we find the same stuff somewhere else? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It was in Taboo that he started singing so while Shuffle Along is usually thought of as his first minor "break" the realization of his singing gifts as a commercial success began with Taboo. Robeson was well known already by the time he hit Harlem as he was a nationally known Football athlete to all blacks and many whites so catching the eye of O'Neil was easy as he stood out. According to Duberman it was All Gods Chillun, E.Jones and the concerts all happening simultaneously that sky-rocketed him to fame Taboo was the stepping stone to all that in more vital ways than Shuffle. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do people think the essay is usable as a source in the article? Perhaps it is a reprint of an article published elsewhere? Or the same author has expanded on the topic elsewhere? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I don't think it looks as good without the subheadings in each section viewed clearly in the Table of Contents. For a subject not often seen it hides too much and makes research much harder. Plus countless other figures don't have this smashed look to their articles. I think it should go back to the way it was so I reverted it. It is much easier to research his vast life that way. What do others think?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. The "long version" of the Table of Contents" fills 2-1/2 screens on my computer. Imagine what it does to a reader who's using a smartphone to access Wikipedia.

As far as your "countless others" argument: How many Wikipedia biographies have 28 top-level sections? Nearly 60 second-level sections? Very few, which is why most other biographies don't have to limit the TOC depth. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

True, and I did not think about those on smaller devices...It is a really good point as computers shrink in size and screen. Would you mind please putting that little "do-hickey" TOC thing back in and let's see how it goes? I would hate to think of someone with limited means to view information online being put off by the ostentatious TOC. Thanks!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"He is also rarely referenced in US school history books alongside other civil rights forerunners."

I removed this sentence because I don't believe it is true. The article talks about how Robeson's reputation has been repaird, over 400 celebrations were held in his centennial year, he was awarded an Oscar, he was the subject of a PBS documentary film. You don't get much more mainstream than that.

I'd like to see sources from the past 20 years that say Robeson can't be found in books alongside other civil rights pioneers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see all these history books he's been included in! 400 celebartions for mostly people over 60 are not HISTORY BOOKS. Those are not the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. I provided the sources in omission from historical records so seriously back off and stop attacking and stalking every single thing I do. NICHE occurrences and bbqs and old Lefty events are not major mainstream occurrences. Bad edits are being made all over here don't just revert mine which are from a knowledgeable source who's spent over a decade studying Robeson. From your talk page others are not happy with how you attack them so you need to stop being an admin or PLEASE STOP BEING A BULLY. It may be time to step away as an admin, you should SERIOUSLY consider it. Thanks -CatherineCatherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk 11:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Referenced" isn't real English is it? It sounds awful. On the substantive point, the history of the Civil Rights movement is still being written. The important thing to cover is how during the Cold War Robeson was removed from records. We have good sources for that. We don't have any source for whether he has the "right" amount of attention in 2011. Catherine, don't use block caps please. It is considered shouting but perhaps you knew that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not tell me not to use block caps. A great deal of your writing sounds awful and some of it written in such an antiquated and with all due respect, lame style that the edits just read poorly and are incorrect. Yet this is an open process so accept not everything you want is going to stand just as I have had to. Malik is being bias and I feel a bit of a bully, in a way the subject matter is not the issue but how I feel he attacks anyone not in his "club."Catherine Huebscher ^Talk/_Stalk 8:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

New good source

Lindsey R. Swindall, The Politics of Paul Robeson's Othello. University Press of Mississippi 2011. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd take that over Boyle and Bunie which is filled with mistakes and incorrect dates as is the Professor and Pupil. I'll need to cull what is now at least two dozen mistakes and wrong dates. Paul Robeson: A Century of Greatness which is nearly all press clippings dating back to 1917 is far superior.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

But remember that just because you personally identify an error that in itself does not disqualify Boyle and Bunie. We must distinguish minor errors from major ones. We don't go on what Wikipedia editors think but on objective criteria like the nature of the publisher and the reviews that the source received. Duberman's is the standard biography, but we can draw on other sources too. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Play about Robeson

Reviewed in The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jan/10/call-mr-robeson-review Could be worth listing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tayo is my friend and a close friend of the BAPRCC so you'll just tag it as "inappropriate" of course so spare us, thanks.

"The French transcript of the speech is in the Paul Robeson Archives"

We're trying to write an encyclopedia article for the general public, not the specialist. The facts are (a) one would expect the Robeson Archives to have transcripts of Robeson's major speeches and (b) most people don't care. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It could go in a footnote. I don't know what "the French transcript of the speech" means. Robeson spoke in English. So it seems that someone made a French translation. When? From a text handed over in advance of the speech? Or from a recording of the speech? If we are to include detail, we need to include the relevant detail. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A French translation was made and exists in France and in the former GDR. There was such huge, massive controversy around this event (what was said, when, how, where it was republished, when etc) that it shattered his career and led to Peekskill and virulent blacklisting. If you two truly had any indepth knowledge of his history and not just snippets strung you'd realize how vital it is that this be detailed. The Paris Peace conference in 1943 warrants its own page anyway until malik decides to delete it because he has to ruin work I do out of clear spitefulness. Seriously Malik, consider stepping down as an admin, it is time. You follow me around from article to article. You let some POV tag stand from someone who just vanished and has done zero work on said article in over a year? Why? Another editor could write the exact same things I do and it would ALL stand no questions, no problems, no knee jerk "undo". Total inexcusable abject playing of favourites. Where you are both ruining this article is by not seeing that just because someone is an unknown today it does not negate their previous unparalleled worldwide fame. Both of you believing that some current status in the media has the final word not history is worrisome.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And your proposal for an improvement to the article is? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Cultural studies article

Tony Perucci, "The Red Mask of Sanity: Paul Robeson, HUAC, and the Sound of Cold War Performance". TDR. Winter 2009, Vol. 53, No. 4 (T204), Pages 18-48. (doi:10.1162/dram.2009.53.4.18)2009 New York University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Interesting article. Uses Duberman and Robeson's published testimony for the facts, adds an analysis that presumably some people will loathe, but it is a scholarly opinion. Spells out, referring to theorists like Derrida and Deleuze & Guattari, how Robeson turned the tables at HUAC and used rhetorical, "theatrical", devices to unmask HUAC's purposes. Am looking to see if I can add a sentence or so from it. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Five or six mistakes including dates. Not a decent source. please don't include it or it will be reverted, there's enough factual errors from your sources as it is. Everything that says "Robeson" and a Uni name on is not some "new find." many are urban myths passed down. Stick with the best biographers. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly source. I won't use it for dates. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Judith Stop Culling

Listen how about leaving well enough alone for awhile and not carving everything down daily? We get it! We get it! You like moving stuff around even though it makes virtually no difference. You've done what you can do, seriously. As it is now SO condensed with vital information erased, the article is really starting to look barren. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, what you need to do is go through the whole thing ensuring that every single sentence is referenced. Then it's time to resubmit it for peer review. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I saw a thread at the reference desk, and figured I'd mention it here. The article was adjusted so that the pronunciation is "Robe-son". However, in an interview with Paul Robeson, Jr., he pronounced it "Row-bess-on". Just thought I'd mention it. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Football

I am going to put a sentence in here on football and cite it. Some of the sections look to lead a lil copy editing. The article looks to be a lil contentious for some reason. I'll probably be drawing from either

• Demas, Lane (2010). Integrating the Gridiron: Black Civil Rights and American College Football. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4741-1
• Levy, Alan H. (2003). Tackling Jim Crow, Racial Segregation in Professional Football. Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Co., Inc. ISBN 0-7864-1597-5
• Piascik, Andy (2009). Gridiron Gauntlet. Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing. ISBN 978-1-58979-443-6

or maybe a couple of new sources I am on the fringe of looking at. I see in a peer review the article is too big. So, it looks like I am stuck on rephrasing a presently uncited sentence and citing it about his professional football career 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds really good. Don't worry too much about adding length, because those sources look great and some more info about the sports career is relevant. Some other sections could still be cut down a bit. What are your views on the article generally? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking I think the article is awesome. But the sections start off with one sentence paragraphs sometimes, which does not fit with the amount of work people must have done and the intelligence the contributors of this article must have. There's some football mistakes too. The article also follows the general pattern of contentious articles in that it is forced to put citations in the lead, which I do not think anyone likes to see as a reader. It's just not fun to see citations in the lead. Let the reader read in peace in the lead. I have no opinion whatsover on the content when it goes beyond football though :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This, "He played professional football in the American Professional Football Association (later called the National Football League) with the Akron Pros and Milwaukee Badgers.", is sloppy. One of the problem with writing an article of this magnitude was that Robeson was involved with so many things at one time. It's a very difficult subject. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

when I say sloppy, I mean 2 things are jumbled into 1 sentence, the pros were in the afpa, the badgers were in the nfl, the nfl needs to be wikified, if its decided to be included, and then there's the question do you include the nfl or the afpa or both. Way down the road, Robeson gets called into an nfl meeting to try to convince the nfl to integrate (which may not be important enough for this article, however, and probably belongs in some football article). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, Gerald Ford is a featured article and it has some football stuff in it. So, I'd like the football stuff to be a lil better. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, I think he started playing for the pros in 1919, which was then an afpa team that became an nfl team. This article has nfl.com showing stats beginning with 1921. Sources are conflicting on when he started playing pro bowl ball (what would you expect; nothing is easy) No worries, the nfl is known to make mistakes. Other sources are:

• Carroll, Bob; with Gershman, Michael, Neft, David, and Thorn, John (1999). Total Football:The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League. New York: HarperCollins ISBN 0-06-270174-6
• Pro Football Researchers Organization 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say just go for it, add the sports elements with strong cites, copy edit to your heart's content. Some of the lead cites may have been added in response to one editor's cn tag. Others, like the pronunciation of his name, were put in in the lead (a few weeks ago) but are not echoed anywhere else in the article, so the cite is needed. (A ref'd awards and honours section would be really useful). The article seems to have moved on quite a bit since the semi-peer review in March and is in better shape. It doesn't seem to be far off GA. Perhaps think of registering a user name. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a sophisticated user

You guys need to archive any web pages that I introduce. I only know how to read books. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Do go ahead, please. If you extend the text a bit, say up to about 200 words, it won't be a problem. We will re-edit and work the text in. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lotsa sections

This article needs to trim down the number of sections in this article...It confuses me. I would first try to knock it down to 32 sections. 2000s in legacy seems to be in need of summarization and removed as a full-blown section. This was a very, very complicated individual. Difficult decisions will have to be made.66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is helpful for those of us who have got used to the article in its present state. One legacy section is enough for any article. Did you see the GA review feedback? The review gave us the example of Joseph Priestley where a long biography was cut right down. Robeson is an important figure who led an exceptionally varied life. Priestley too. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I did read the GA review feedback. Wow, that Priestley article is ... It makes me smile. ERR, I like the External links in this article better though, but umm wow. I can't wait to take a really good look at it to fix up Bert Bell. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Priestly more w respect to the lack of use of pronouns he or his in this article. I do not agree with using his full name so much when a pronoun can be used instead. Featured article or not, I really advocate to, at most, using his last name only once in a paragraph when its clear the pronoun refers to him. That being said, I'll stop switching to using pronouns. But, I don't like it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

1. adding find a grave: every article has that if it exists 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Congressional Testimony: moving link Testimony of Paul Robeson before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, June 12, 1956 to here, the real link needs to be found as seen in Bert Bell Sources or any other place I need it like NFL Draft or NFLPA Bibliography. I would strongly advocated moving it up to Further reading and it probably should be perused for relevant info, although I would stay away from any testimony. However, as I mention here Talk:National Football League Players Association#Congressional record link, once anyone in Congress enters anything into the record, then it's no longer primary sources; it's open season. The link that I am moving here is half-baked. The full proper link should be able to be found, if not, then the entire published book by the Government Publishing Office of the testimony needs to be temporarily installed. I put the link on this page so it does not get lost. Note: you go to your library, logon to its wifi, click on the link, and download to your laptop, for free. For the 1957 one, its 3000 pages, but it's a quick 3000 page read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3. adding biography portal: self-explanatory 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
4. correct dead link at FBI: the link in this article was dead. I correct the link at changed its name to match others in the section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
5. NJDH: it's a dead link that needs to be fixed. I want the names to be close as all the links fall under the same purpose for including or the links need to be moved to a different section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
6. moving template wikiquote up into the article: Whenever he starts getting quoted, then that's where that wikiquote thingie goes. I strongly suspect that is the official wikipedia policy, although I do not know if that's true. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
7. AACVR: renamed to match others in list. Well, I expect that actual name to be changed soon enough. I took a shot :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Bay Area Paul Robeson Centennial Committee: Changed the name. It's a sited dedicated, but apparently, unaffiliated with the Robeson family. So it can't be named official. I see no reason why it should be mentioned as a non-profit organization. Who cares if they make money or not as long as their contributions are valid. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
9. moving AACVR: AACVR needs to be temporarily moved to Paul Robeson#Further reading and then information needs to be extracted from it and then moved into the Paul Robeson#References. He won all those medals in Germany. They need to be put in the Posthumous honors section. Also AAVCR does not really fit in external links. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion, that looks prettier to me. NJDH and AACVR need to be fixed and renamed accordingly.66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AACVR is fixed and moved on. NJDH is still problematic.

And yes it looks even prettier now with those template thingies too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Good article Halle Berry uses a worldcat template. I copy and pasted the template. Now external links looks even prettier! 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Posthumous honors

I messed up. If you can not an explanation here for a change and the change was in Published works, then the explanation is in published works. Sorry. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1. tautological: "Paul Robeson's image is also featured prominently" are you sure its not hidden by a sack of potatoes :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC) needs rephrasing. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
2. The program consisted of a dramatic performance: Who cares who was in it, or who directed it? Off-topic, move to delete that sentence. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
3. citation needed for included in memorial: citation was challenged and it failed. No biggie. If it's true, then a proper citation may be found. If not true, then it's really not that big of an honor. Moving link to here [3] for safekeeping. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
4. 20 events in San Francisco alone: why include that, was there some kind of competition on which city could have the most celebrations? If so, then put it back in :)
5. celebrations: changed to events honoring his life. Unless there was some cold ones going down, then it's events honoring his life and not a celebration 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC) "events honoring his life" may need tweaking...maybe something like "events reflecting on his life and legacy" (Umm, yeah that looks good) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
6. stamp: someone needs to get a picture of that stamp and put it right there next to where he got a stamp in his honor. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
7. high schools: so many high schools have been named in his honor that it is meaningless to put it in this article. Deleting: "On September 6, 1977 the Paul Robeson High School opened at 6835 South Normal Boulevard in Chicago, Illinois." The high schools that have been named in his honor are (spending only 40 seconds on searching): http://insideschools.org/high/browse/school/771 http://www.prhs.org/ http://www.paulrobesonhs.org/ http://www.nbps.k12.nj.us/schools/pr/default.htm
8. To this day: deleting "To this day (2011), it is still named so." If they rename it to something else, maybe put that in instead. Also, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson is not a valid source, replace with citation needed
9. 2000s: delete section title because I have never seen any article compartmentalize legacy and there's no need to because it's cumbersome to edit there
10. also honored him posthumously: delete, redundant
11. relocation of cultural center: delete, off topic, not notable, section already includes that it exists on campus: "In 1999, the Robeson Center moved into a new building as a partner in the HUB-Robeson Center complex" - no plagiarisim allowed - which serves as the main student union building for Penn State's University Park campus.cite web | url = http://studentaffairs.psu.edu/cultural/commitment/history.shtml | title = Paul Robeson Cultural Center | accessdate = 2011-10-19
12. College Hall of Fame: add better source and keep original statement here because it includes the date but original source does not support it at all, Note:"On January 18, 1995 Paul Robeson was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, a step taken by the National Football Foundation which many called "long-overdue". ref name= Chronology8 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The article needs some criticism of his life in his legacy.

"The double tragedy of his life" [4], "Paul Robeson dead at 77" [5], et. al.

Quotes too long

Quotes I think are too long and they need to be pulled out of notes section, summarized and put into body of the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC) When citing from a newspaper, the wikipedia citation says "Relevant excerpt". I saw some of the discussions about stuff being moved around and one side wanted it here and one wanted it there; always a problem. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Published works

1. I had to change the formatting and use the official wikipedia generators because the works included info about introduction which is something you use to help sell a book. It can be switched back easily
2. the last book I did not look into to see who the author was; no time.
3. i removed the second isbn # in one book 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
4. citation needed: I put in a citation needed for his article "Forerunner". It's required. I have one for Bert Bell#Published Works because I only read one of those 4 or 5 articles. I put in the citation needed in the reason section "Dodd, 1978; enlarged, 1985." I have no idea what that means. I have no idea how to put it in the book format. I "enlarged" looks entirely specious to me and I tend to believe it does not belong. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion, it is considered very impolite to change the format of published works or citations around. I apologoize, but there is nothing I could do about it because I have no experience whatsover in dealing with editors in citations. So you have to switch them back. I had to get rid of authors of introductions, or prefaces, as both are either advertisements, for modern books, or name dropping for older books. Lastly, the the book Paul Robeson, Tributes, Selected Writings is here, [6], and, as you can see from that webpage, it does say "compiled and edited for the Paul Robeson Archives by Roberta Yancy Dent ; assisted by Marilyn Robeson and Paul Robeson, Jr." I deleted the "...assisted by ..." and just went with. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)