Talk:Paul Robeson congressional hearings

Tagged

Why was this tagged for neutrality? Give a reason without simply indiscriminately tagging and walking away. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is sufficiently NPOV. Certain pharses such as "persecution" may be objectionable but are much more easily handled with edits than tags. FWIW, this page's content had been re-worked back in 2009 in association with the Jackie Robinson FA nomination, and reflects treatment by several authors other than Catherine Huebscher, including myself. I do not think the tag is justified, and I think the subject matter (as a HUAC investigation) is noteworthy. I also prefer this being a separate article rather than a subset of the Paul Robeson, The Soviet Union and Communism article because, judging from the page view histories, most readers have accessed the material vis-a-vis Robinson, not Robeson. BillTunell (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also FWIW, I re-created this page, not Catherine Huebscher. Finally, I think it is always better form to note the location of any discussion opened up on the affected pages, and therefore woudl call attention to the existence of WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Paul_Robeson_again. BillTunell (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill, if you restore an article that was criticised as non-neutral before, it is no surprise that the criticism will resurface as well.

The article is not neutal in its selected presentation of the background. While noting Robeson's advocacy for socialism, it then gives some information (e.g. his stance in favour of the Anti-Hitler-coalition between the US and the USSR) while omitting others (e.g. his 1939 pro-Hitler-Stalin stance, his pre-1941 anti-World War II stance). His stances are also drowned in a "others did this as well" claim. This is intermingled with only bad things and motives being attributed to US insistutions, e.g. the FBI, making it seem the US after 1945 just out of a whim turned against the Soviet Union. Fact is that the US did not immediately ("as soon as the war ended") turn against the USSR. Fact is that many aggressive acts by the Eastern super power played a factor in this. Furthermore, opposition against communism is labeled "McCarthyism" and "Red Scare", as if McCarthy (who had little interaction with Robeson and no role on HUAC) had been the only one and as it had been just an irrational scare.

The actual context of the hearing, Robeson's Paris speech is mentioned in the intro but missing in the article text (never a sign of a quality article).

And I also think that focusing this on the Robinson hearing makes too little of an article. But that is not a matter of NPOV and not why I tagged the article.

Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 11:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What passage are you actually objecting against? At present there is no WWII reference, the article merely states that US and USSR were competitors during the Cold War (which by all accounts is factually correct). McCarthyism isn't limited just to the actions of McCarthy himself, but describes a broader phenomenon. As a political term, McCarthyism is of mainstream usage. --Soman (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

POV tag removed. The article is properly sourced. There is clearly enough information for the reader to make up their mind. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HUAC being moved here

Thanks Bill, in restructuring the chronology of the main article I will now be moving Robeon's HUAC hearings here as well and will include Eslanda's testimony and the testimonies of those accused him. So this will be about something other than Jackie and Paul and be a place for all related Robeson hearings.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1948 Testimony

I was trying to find public domain audio of the 1956 HUAC testimony by Robeson and I came across an entirely separate testimony by Robeson in 1948. Given the title of this article I am surprised there is no mention at all of it. National archives record is http://research.archives.gov/description/2867048 online audio is available at http://www.authentichistory.com/1946-1960/8-civilrights/celebrity/19480531_Paul_Robesons_Senate_Testimony_on_Mundt-Nixon_Bill.html I found no text transcript of the 30 minute testimony, but on listening to it, it covers much of the typical topics regarding Robeson in the period (civil rights, communism, fascism, etc... ) and I think would be of interest to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.196.186 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)