Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

"As a political activist he was aligned with the Soviet Union"

The difficulty in dealing with a controversial figure is whether to believe what they say. The professional way to respond is if someone says X, then X is true unless you can prove otherwise. Please read Sidney Potier's book.

Robeson was not so much aligned with the Soviet Union as something else. You are also missing the key book from a major critic of Robeson in the 1950s that was published in the 1990s that really unlocks the enigma of Robeson. I think it's Murray Kempton (I honestly forget the author, but it is definitely a New York City columnist. The book is sitting in the (I Think) Dorothy Gillam(?) section of the main branch of the NYPL. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple question (for a statement that is mandatory to be in this article), Why did Robeson want his son to go to school in the Soviet Union? Was it because he had felt "aligned" to the Soviet Union? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Paul Leroy Robeson (play /ˈroʊbsən/ ROHB-sən April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was an American singer and actor who was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement. As a political activist he was aligned with the Soviet Union, and during McCarthyism this brought scrutiny and retribution from the American government."

Paul Leroy Robeson (play /ˈroʊbsən/ ROHB-sən April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was an American singer and actor who was an advocate(participated in) for the Civil Rights Movement in the first half of the 20th Century. Continuous (continual?) assaults on his character, and on his race in general, propelled (was a catalyst?)him to (blah, blah, blah) Anti-Colonialism, Socialism, in general, and the Soviet Union in particular. His affinity with (blah blah blah)Josef Stalinthe Soviet Union, and during McCarthyism this brought scrutiny and retribution from the American government and public.

grammar is of course terrible. But that's much, much, much more accurate~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

don't confuse socialism w the Soviet Union, they are distinct, see Muste's book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not an article about love of one thing or another, it's about hatred :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you want to put in a sentence on motivation to get involved in politics, but that is going to be terribly difficult to do in the first paragraph. Readers will have to decide for themselves why he did get so involved, and also whether the choices he later made were the right ones. I really don't think we can deduce that it was directly because of insults he personally experienced. The phrase "socialism in general and the Soviet Union in particular" is good. Anti-colonialism is also worth mentioning early on. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I agree with you. It would be terribly difficult in the first paragraph. Um, no: "I really don't think we can deduce that it was directly because of insults he personally experienced.", better put is maybe we can not write it in this article, but can we deduce it, um, yes. :) 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

1. In the 1920's, Paul Robeson told that law firm to take that job and shove it.
2. In the 1930's, Paul Robeson told America to take their culture and shove it.
3. In the 1940's, he told Truman to take his politics and shove it.
4. In the 1950's, he told the America to take their opinion of him and shove it.

Defiant. Courage. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have access to the key book on Thursday or Friday. The first chapter is dedicated to Robeson. What defines Robeson is his courage. That is his legacy. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to rethink this idea that we can not include a "why" in the first paragraph. It will certainly be exposed to citations required and vandalism, um, people of Eastern European descent (i live across the street from the Czech mission) that were subject to Russian rule are not fond of Russia, Russian people, or anyone associated with Russia. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Cold War needs to be wikified, and
2. more importantly, the Cold War, Wikipedia Article editors should be allowed to define what the Cold War was.

That needs to be deleted, especially bad in the intro to define another article/subject in the intro. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that I am to blame for this yuckiness: "Though internationally acclaimed, he was blacklisted in the United States from performing on stage, screen, radio and television and as a result, his income suffered because he was also not permitted to travel overseas. His right to travel was restored in 1958, but his already faltering (can't put "already faltering" in the intro - deleting) health broke down under controversial circumstances in 1963."...yuck 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. 1. clearly yuck, too many bytes 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally messed up with Bert Bell. Clearly there are only 2 major "players" of the early NFL, the immortal George Halas and Bert Bell. Everyone else in the NFL was dispassionate businessmen. And I could never portray his passion for the game of football (and everything I wrote between 1940 and 1945 for Bell is total garbage). Robeson had feelings; he had a heart and soul. I have no idea how that is going to work out here. But, I don't know. I wanna see some feelings. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. 1937/1938 Paul Robeson
2. 1939 Paul Robeson Jr.
3. 194x CAA (i'm weak on the CAA)
4. 1946 (his meeting w Truman)

I prefer # 1 because that's what Paul Robeson said was the changing point of his life. I am not partial to Paul Robeson's Jr. interpretation. The CAA turning point is somewhat valid. The Truman lynching, which I thought was good, is clearly a no go. I respectfully suggest the turning point of his life is what he said it was, the SCW. Nothing else really makes sense. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The turning point of the opinion of American public is clearly his meeting w Truman. But, that's a different ballgame. The POTUS has awesome power. And Truman used it. But that's not this article. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, great edit. Very proud. Not as good as hammering Christy Walsh though. Perfect. I love it. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is full of great editors, but my Wikipedia edit on Christy Walsh was an all-time great. I am very, very, very proud of that edit. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. "Though internationally acclaimed" - yuck, and
2. "but his health had broken down under controversial circumstances" - that's not really true at all - in context
3. and 3, I want him to issue a major screw you to to American public(the writers of the dailies) opinion.

Good work. I'm happy. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No way that I'm toleratingI would be very unhappy with a 2 sentence introductory paragraph. You gotta go 4 sentences. I'll let 3 slide. But 4 looks to be where the action is. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I want 4, 3, or 5 sentences in the intro. Case Closed. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologized, I should not have said that. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

<!--/THIS needs major research work to be accomplished; all prima-facia evidence supports the idea that the United States opposition to the CAA's projects (which mirrored?/paralleled?/ that of the Soviet Union raised red flags, pardon the pun, in the US Government. The US Government was trying to win over the, pardon the cliche, the hearts and minds of Third World Countries and Robeson was bungling that up... Please, separate mickey-mouse politicians from President Truman (I even don't like Truman). It's not that he was pro-Communist/Stalinist/socialist(deal w his socialist views later, that's a very, very difficult one). He's not "pro", he is "anti". There is no evidence to support he is "pro" except for his "To You My Beloved Comrade", but that has to be taken into context from the oppression the US government subjected him to at the time. Follow the timeline, keep everything in context. And, most importantly, please realize that incontrovertible evidence should show that Stalin was way, way too preoccupied with defeating the Germans (and maintaining his sanity), than combating Western imperialism. During this time frame (WWII), the CAA was beginning to build an infrastructure to aid African countries, which was independent process (as far I know at this time) of any political affiliations, i.e. Stalinism/Communism/Socialist. The CAA is the key, not this mickey-mouse Poughkeepsie, New York stuff. -->

Don't get hung up, which is very easy to do, with the 1950s stuff. Robeson got in trouble because of AGLOSO and that was because of CAA.

Please, please, please, please keep the timeline clean. Don't put 1950s stuff into the 1930s or 1940s.

I will not be able to get the book I want for a few more days. It will not explain why Robeson did what he did in the 1950s directly, but there is one line in the book (it's chapter 1, should be entitled Rebels or something or other) that is deadly and if you think about it, it's possible to put the pieces together. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, over-emphasis of his support for the Soviet Union in the 1950s in the introduction, I humbly suggest, is naive. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that's the way this article should play out. But, 1949 is going to be an absolute nightmare.

1. Peekskill can only be 1 paragraph.
2. World Peace council, let's get real, the press likes to make headlines now and in the 1950s they probably screwed up lots of stuff; this article is way too pro-Robeson in this area. To say the press of the 1950s had complete journalistic integrity is almost borderline silly. I got Christy Walsh forever. He can never escape what I called him out for.
3. It's too detailed that he sang
   Zog Nit Keynmol
4. off topic: "unable to find any of his Jewish friends"
5. nope: "At an ensuing concert, Robeson paid tribute to Feffer and Mikhoels, singing the Yiddish song 'Zog Nit Keynmol'"-pro-Robeson editor, Duberman is right, Robeson needs to be hammered.
6. too detailed: "This subsequent controversy over his Paris speech caused the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) to seek Jackie Robinson's testimony on the subject." - that's a Jackie Robinson thing and not a Paul Robeson thing
7. whole paragraph needs major rework on Jackie Robinson, way too many bytes wasted

66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Special attention should be played to the SCW era. Research in this article should focus heavily on this era. I respectfully suggest that if Robeson wrote it, then you really should take him at face value or attempt to prove him wrong. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Theatrical ascension looks to be a major problem. Show Boat (1928-1929) and Marriage difficulties (1930-1932) looks to be the major culprit. Too many bytes there. Show Boat (1928-1929) looks to be the culprit. Can't afford to have an entire section in TOC for Show Boat. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's the length of the TOC you're worried about, you can make that shorter without changing the article by having it not show subsections. Sindinero (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you are a genius. I'll have to look into that. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, i guess everyone wants to cite the pronunciation of his name. I give up. If everyone wants a citation in the intro for the pronunciation of his name, then I'm cool with that. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's going to boil down to who struck 1st, the U.S. Government or Robeson. Right now, I see it as the USG struck first. If you align Robeson too quickly to the USSR, then the introduction will be destroyed forever on Wikipedia. You have to do the research and find out what irked the USG about the CAA to put it on the AGLOSO.

If Robeson struck first, then it's open season on him. If the USG struck first, then it's a matter of: was his response rational or wise. (my opinion at this time is the USG struck first- this should be fun). 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand this article's previous editors to stress Robeson's non-prejudicial nature to people of the Jewish religion. There is no evidence whatsoever that Robeson was prejudice against anyone of any race, color, or creed. If you really want to emphasize he was not anti-Jewish, then fine, get an author to show the context of a 20th century anti-Semitic America and put in a citation. This should be easy to do. I think it's overkill, a waste of bytes, and outside the scope of this article.66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

They are a big part of the SCW, but they use 2 many bytes. Delete. The citation is preserved. You can look into the history of the SCW vis a vis the Welsh Miners and the Asturian revolt if u like. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"they encountered the racism that flourished..." I mean that is an absolute wonderful edit. That's perfect. I do not watch other people's edits, but who ever wrote that is a genius. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

yep, after looking that edit over after a full night's rest, whomever wrote that is a genius. That is absolutely perfect. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

20k more bytes to go 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that's an intro I can work with. I am very happy

the reader can decide if he was a pro-Soviet guy or an anti-US guy, which is what I want in the intro. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to chop it down to 4 sentences though. 4 sentences would be perfect. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

4 sentences, that might be poorly written, but it's 4 sentences. that's what i want. 4 sentences for the intro paragraph. yay me. 00:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.13 (talk)

No, that intro is garbage. I can't go near the intro cause I know next to nothing about the 1940s. The intro should stay as meaningless dribble until expert knowledge is gained. I'd swear, writing an introduction when you are not an expert on a controversial figure is like jumping into a poison ivy patch. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It really can only be 2 sentences. 5 sentences is way, way too much. That is not a Robeson thing, its a Robinson thing. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I was lucky enuf to listen to an interview of her a week or 2 ago. Jackie Robinson had remorse over his testimony in front of HUAC w respect to Robeson, according to his autobiography. Jackie Robinson's wife, in the interview, expressed their major concern after WWII was that Jackie "find a job". Jackie Robinson stuff belongs in the Jackie Robinson article on Wikipedia, and not here. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I used him as a source in this article. I do not agree with his analysis. But he passed away only a few days ago, so I can not insult him. Maybe I did misinterpret what he wrote. But the statement stays, he was a Professor and, apparently, a world renown scholar, I lose again. [1] 66.234.33.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

i guess I need to reevaluate my an analysis. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Lustiger's sources on this are Louis Rapoport and Paul Robeson Jr. Lustiger is a world class historian. This is closed out. It is untouchable. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not valid:

"When Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war, Robeson was among the first performers to give benefit concerts on behalf of the war effort, making him one of the top American actors and singers of that era." - Susan Robeson can not be used as a source. She is not a historian by profession, and she is clearly biased. Ughh. I can not delete it, it is not necessarily false. I'll jack a citation needed on it. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am feeling a 5 paragragph section with 3 4 sentence paragraphs and 2 5 sentence paragraphs. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

i know everyone wants this, so I will put it back in later. It makes it easier to edit the intro if this is not in the intro:

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cpsr.cs.uchicago.edu/robeson/links/quotes.html |title=Paul Robeson Centennial Celebration Resources About Paul Robeson (1898-1976) | quote = The name is pronounced in two syllables only: Robe-son. |accessdate=3 June 2012}}</ref> 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

put it back in 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Duberman's, or perhaps better yet, the introduction of the quote by Duberman about Robeson's death by a Wikipedia editor is perfect. Duberman wrote it perfectly and a Wikipedia editor edited perfectly 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

One author specifically mentions Robeson as the most significant American figure who visited the battlefront of the SCW to support the Republican forces. However, Errol Flynn was also there, maybe the author missed that? OTOH, Flynn was not in the same league w Robeson at the time - as I have already documented on this talk page. Point being, I'd like to get that 2nd paragraph in the SCW to 4 sentences, instead of 3. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I put it in. I really do not like to read 3 sentence paragraphs - they're ugly. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

only 69 bytes to go :) 66.234.33.13 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm feeling a 95k article. That's the target.66.234.33.13 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"When Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war, Robeson was among the first performers to give benefit concerts on behalf of the war effort, making him one of the top American actors and singers of that era"

1. "When Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor brought the US into the war" - that's not this article's job to explain why the US and Japan went to war.
2. "among the first performers to give benefit concerts on behalf of the war effort" - she is not a major historian - I reject this
3. "making him" - no, I reject this outright; she is not a historian. (using rhe words "consequently" and "making him" means that a world renown historian have to be involved with a citation.)

A letter to the New York Times is not historical research. I do accept the idea that he was "one of the top American actors and singers of that era". 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

1. intro -> disaster
2. childhood -> ok
3. Rutgers-> wow, that's long
4. Columbia -> ok
5. Harlem Renaissance, that a lil long
6. Showboat, Othello, ->missing Savoy
7. Ideological awakening -> nightmare title, putting his son in school in the USSR is mandatory to be included.
8. SCW, ugghh, needs tons of work66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry now to have touched the intro at all. Intros have to be written last. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are the only one person intelligent enuf to write it. If you make mistakes in Wikepedia, you just reedit it. No big deal:) I look forward to your edits. Just, 1950s is 1950s, 1940s is 1940s. That's all. Quite honestly, this is about having fun. Have fun. :) 66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's get mean and ugly. A legacy and honors section means we have to deal with streets in Princeton named after him - um, who cares; let's deal with his legacy. Put away your ipads and androids. Let's deal with the fact of lynchings, mass unemployment, no hot water, communal bathrooms, communism, Stalinism, JAFC, etc. Get down to the basics on legacy and honors, not mickey mouse stuff. Love him or hate him, that was a different era. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I humbly suggest you are entirely wrong in your initial assessment of my complaint on your Wikipedia article on Malcolm X (I honestly have not followed the thread). Wikipedia is an encyclopedic article which means the editor must provide resources where a researcher can further investigate the subject. I think there is some confusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the "be all and end all of information", but it is rather a starting point at which you should begin your investigation. I am jacking a new section on this article called Archives where people can further investigate Robeson. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, i just looked at including an archive section, dang it was pretty ugly and it destroyed the filmography section spacing. - which I can not figure out, so I can not include the section - it adds 12 or 13 lines of white space to the article ???? I guess Wikipedia has some bugs in it.66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

1. ok, it does not attack Robeson for anything but I only know the 1920s and 1930s really, so I can't attack him because it's not possible to attack him in that timeframe
2. The "honors" section is totally bogus, just about everything in it needs to be deleted. It is all mickey mouse stuff
3. Legacy is for abstract stuff, not mickey mouse stuff that he got a street named for him in Princeton, ughh.
4. Generally speaking I feel comfortable with stuff in legacy now, they may not belong in their exactly, but the ideas fit.66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

this can not be taken as a serious attack:

Later when his left-wing activism became controversial, accusations that he was a "'godless' Communist" were not accepted by his black churchgoing audiences, who felt he "personified the spirituals in his music". He never expressed "even the remotest allegiance to 'materialistic [[atheism]]'".<ref>Duberman: 410</ref>

To imply that Robeson was Godless, is just utterly ridiculous. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

iow, if you defend robeson, when there is no need to defend robeson, it's a waste of bytes, so i delete it. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We can get this puppy below 100k. Wow. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's really good. I've been looking through the Rutgers section. Although it is all sourced, it is too long. There's still some editorializing in there. The section should hit the reader with all his actual achievements. The sports first, I think, then the music, then the academic success and valedictorian speech. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I deleted a whole bunch of bytes, I do not know what your exact complaint is, but the Robeson article is now much shorter than the Jackie Robinson featured article. Right now, the 2nd paragraph is kinda long and so is the 3rd paragraph. But in the 3rd paragraph his father died. So that's a major problem abridging that. The 2nd paragraph could require a better editor than me. I would have a major problem if you messed with As a sophomore, amidst Rutgers' sesquicentennial celebration, he was insultingly benched when a Southern team refused to take the field because Rutgers fielded a Negro, Robeson

That was clearly devastating. I really don't want anyone to mess with that sentence. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want this article to progress, it's really up to you. I spent 12 hours on this article today and I can not afford to do that anymore for quite sometime. The only thing I am concerned about is cleaning up the citations required, specifically the Murray Kempton one in legacy and the other one in legacy about introducing spirituals to Great Britain. I wish I could do more, but now I can not. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I humbly suggest, Jackie Robinson is not a complex subject. However, Robeson is an unbelievably complex subject. The introduction for this article should end up longer than the Robinson article by 2 sentences. But as this article stands now, we will be ahead of that article. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Judith, please, I beg you, jump to the 1940s. There are bigger fish to fry than my crummy edits. Please. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The comment folded into the Larry Richards citation can be deleted later about Robeson not having a role in the movie and only being shown in it. Now every one knows that his book can be used incorrectly in this article. I don't know if every movie in this article article had a citation, but now they surely do now.66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Von Eschen quote in legacy is ...*think* needs reworking, needs double-checking. Basically I was floored by her analysis. I think she's a genius and she's an amazing writer. I really don't like to jump into legacy or intro without looking at the details. But I have complete faith in Von Eschen that she will support that in her book, i just didn't have time to read her entire book today. The fact that she denotes the 1st 2 pages to Robeson in her book, and that page 185 is the first paragraph of her conclusion chapter.66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

her book is drawn from her master thesis, and her master thesis is a work of art. She's a genius. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of Robeson's achievements were not Harlem based so I was reluctant to include Robeson as part of the Harlem Renaissance. But I thought about it for a few months, but I thought about it for a few months and I guess basically what Wintz is saying is that Robeson did not have to be based in Harlem to be part of the Harlem Renaissance. For a contrary view, ostensibly, see Murray Kempton's attack on Robeson in the 1950s. Even though Wintz is a total powerhouse, I am not necessarily going to follow him blindly. As far as the Dorinson book agreeing he was part of the Harlem Renaissance, my view is it is way way way way too pro-Robeson.66.234.33.13 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I can not include this stuff, it does not fit in grammatically. I dump it here to keep the page numbers:

<nowik>He demanded attention for his views on civil rights in America, Australia and South Africa, the labor movement,^[1] religious liberty for Jews and others and the dangers of Fascism.^{[ (June 2012)">citation needed]}</nowiki>66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"However in light of Khruschev's revelations of the atrocities committed by Stalin during his regime, his unrepentant support of Stalin was a stain on his lifelong human rights activism."

I have no citation whatsoever that supports this. But he needs to be hammered here. Quite honestly, umm, he wanted to be hammered. He did it on purpose. That's really the key. Robeson was very intelligent. He did what he did on purpose. The only real question is did he confuse Marxism w Stalinism, or was he just really pissed off at the US government. I'm tired, I said 100 nice things about Robeson, but he is not getting away scot-free.66.234.33.13 (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I could say two things here. One is about editing, that it is not up to us to decide. But I know you also want to work him out in tour own mind. For the second purpose you need to read more about the Communist movement in the twentieth century. Orwell's Homage to Catalonia at least. Isaac Deutscher on Stalin. Probably a biography of Picasso. From Yalta to Vietnam . Because Robeson is the fellow-traveller of all fellow-travellers, and you need to be able to think yourself into the logic of that. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

i'm exhausted. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1. his income plummeted
2. he was persona non grata in the American civil rights movement
3. he was persona non grata musically
4. he was persona non grata at the College HOF
5. he was persona non grata at Rutgers

66.234.33.13 (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1. using the verb "apologized" is pov.
2. apologized, can clearly be associated w Robeson over the Feffer affair, however
3. if you want, go get Kempton's book, and attack Robeson in his legacy, but not in the intro
4. As Rothe writes in his book, Stalin reached an almost mythic proportion as the "bogey" man over the atrocities he committed by the mid 1960s, but
5. you can not use 20/20 hindsight, and by your edits, you clearly are implying that Robeson was almost mentally incapacitated by the mid 1960s 66.234.33.13 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

In order for him to apologize, he would have had to believe he did something wrong. How about - "no chance". 66.234.33.13 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

apology is defined as: "A regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure..." There is no chance he ever admitted regret. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This is mandatory to be in the introduction. It's not a fun topic to write about, but it is very controversial. I removed from further reading (because user itsmejudith wanted the further reading abridged) an online article by two scholars that he attempted suicide like other leftists who became disenchanted after they learned of Stalin's atrocities. The online article was never used by me as a citation because the knuckehead authors never listed a single solitary person's name of another leftist who attempted or committed suicide because of their previous confusion of Marxism w Stalinism. Paul Robeson Jr.'s claim that he committed suicide because of the the US Government gave him MKULTRA is specious, unproven, and unverifiable at this time. Everyone on wikipedia just loves conspiracy theories. We need to deal with this head on and get it out of the way. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That being said, the intro is a complete joke. The entire 1940s and 1950s are essentially missing. But he attempted suicide has to be in the introduction. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you wrote about is verified and all of it is conjecture. His health was breaking down long before the revelations. he also knew about the Stalin regime LONG before the 20th part congress. You can't simply throw out that with absolutely no proof. " online article by two scholars that he attempted suicide like other leftists who became disenchanted after they learned of Stalin's atrocities." sounds like more rubbish. Robeson was close friends with no one in the regime, he never resided in the USSR nor did he ever serve in the USSR government even as an emissary for the CPUSA. Jr. lived there with ma Goode for a time and his brother in laws immigrated there. You REALLY need to read more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.156.82 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I can quickly bring, at least, 10 authors to say that he was impacted in more ways than financially over his political beliefs. I would guess about 15. It's a not wise in the intro to do list an account on all the ways he was impacted. Even in the body of the article, it is already way way way too Pro-Robeson in it's listing them and is a total waste of bytes66.234.33.13 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Bring them in. you have no idea what you are talking about. You have complete ownership of the article and it looks and sounds terrible. Robeson was never financially decimated at anytime in his life. It just sounds like a bad attempt at Black history from the cable access network.

Move to revert. This has become a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.156.82 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiasm. Please read WP Lead. The definition of decimate is Kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage of. Please reevaluate your edits.66.234.33.13 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm confused, which am I, pro-Robeson because I say he was financially decimated or pro-Franco cause I cite Landis and mention Real Madrid was a propaganda station for the Republican forces in the SCW? 66.234.33.13 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Um, that was cited with Landis.
2. You also swapped out world renown historian Arno Lustiger for [Paul Robeson Chronology (Part 6)
3. I humbly suggest your sources need reevaluation 66.234.33.13 (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess a lack of a decent intro leaves this article vulnerable. If I was to do the intro, I would

1. I follow Wikipedia lead
2. I would abstract out everything and commit to nothing
3. I would exclude everything but the most important/controversial topics of his life
4. I would pay special attention to the first sentence and then the first paragraph
5. In the 2nd paragraph I would concentrate on his life up and until his ideological awakening - the SCW
6. In the 3rd paragraph I would concentrate on his life from that period until the shoe dropped in 1949
7. In the 4th paragraph I would concentrate on his life from that period until the end of his life.
8. I would never put a citation in the introduction, except for the pronunciation of his name, cause everyone would be editing from here to eternity to put that in.

That's the way I would do it. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I know it is an unsettling topic. I don't know, maybe I have struck a cord and got someone mad. I personally don't want to write about it or deal with it, but it has to be done. I am very sorry. He could have attempted suicide because of his play in football, MKULTRA, or over possible despair over revelations of Stalin's crimes against humanity. But it belongs in the introduction. I am sorry. Here is featured article Ernest Hemingway: "but in 1959 he moved from Cuba to Ketchum, Idaho, where he committed suicide in the summer of 1961." 66.234.33.13 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)66.234.33.13 (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's in the intro of the Hemingway article. Case closed. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"Punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved."

Um, yeah, that's exactly the pov of the US goverment of why his passport was revoked at the time. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, yeah but your job is not to um speak for um the POVs of the US government. Your wording and language usage is abysmal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.156.82 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to mock or insult other editors working on this article, and this goes for edit summaries as well as the talk page. Please check out

WP:CIVIL, if you haven't already. Sindinero (talk

) 05:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought after 2,000 edits in this article and reading 40+ books on Robeson that I fell into the trap of being too pro-Robeson. Apparently, based on the latest editor's edits. I am not. I guess that's a good thing. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You care about NPOV. Some don't. Best just to refer them to policy. And the article will refer to the good sources and we continue to make progress. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could do more, but I can not at this time. History will reveal the truth, sooner or later. No one can ever take away the fact that I went down to Maryland and picked up Christy Walsh's book, held it in my hands, and rescued history. Clearly, one of the best moments in my life. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he attempted suicide on more than one occasion. If I have unnerved some pro-Robeson folks, I am sorry, but recent edits suggest you are unhappy I brought it up. It's not fun and I take no enjoyment whatsoever in bringing it up. I am not the biggest fan of Robeson but I most assuredly do not have anything against him. I am really sorry to have to bring it up, but it has to be dealt with. I would not anyone to attempt suicide. But I will most assuredly jam his attempted suicide(s) in the introduction (with citations), and due to the overly pro-Robeson recent edits I will endeavor to dig up the authors who claim that he attempted suicide because of his blinding failure to distinguish between Marxism and Stalinism and do what I can to pound Robeson into the ground. If you want to get pro-Robeson, then I will go anti-Robeson full-blown and start attacking. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You know what, maybe I'm a lil' like Robeson, I'm tee'd off :) 66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed my mind. There is a certain stigma that apparently exists when a loved one attempts or commits suicide. This article is not important enough to have any one's feelings get hurt. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If user malik shabazz ain't getting involved. Then I am not getting involved. I wish I could have done more to make this article better. I am not reverting any edits. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. You've done a great deal to improve this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed it, but I've reverted the sockpuppet IP. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

1. was an internationally acclaimed American singer and actor - yes
2. who was a political activist for the Civil Rights Movement - i don't know
3. But his advocacy of anti-colonialism and his criticism of racism in the United States - i don't know
4. were deemed anti-thetical to US foreign policy - he was placed on AGLOSO - case closed
5. bringing retribution from the executive branch of the US, scrutiny from the United States Congress, and public condemnation - undeniable
6. He was blacklisted - undeniable
7. was financially decimated - unable to rephrase to deal with previous editor's complaints, the only other phrase that fits is "he tremendously suffered financially" - which is too many bytes
8. To his detriment - don't you guys see why he did what he did? That's the key, it unlocks the puzzle. He knew what he was doing. Do not defame his courage. He knew what he was doing. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, don't assume that there is a "you guys". Now that Malik has blocked the sockpuppet, there is only really me and Malik looking at what you're doing. And both of us are trying to encourage and provide critical friendship, while you have the energy to make lots of edits. And don't assume that you know what Malik or I are thinking, or what we understand about PR. At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether any of us editors "get" PR. Or even (that may seem shocking to you) if the readers "get" PR. It's an encyclopedia article. It needs to lay out the main facts. In my opinion, you have to know a lot about the communist movement of the mid 20th century to even get close to understanding him. Which I do, don't think you do yet. At the same time you also have to know a lot about the Harlem Renaissance and Jazz Age to even get close to understanding him. Which I don't, you might. That is why we are all working together. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well stated as always. I know next to nothing about the communist movement of the mid 20th century. However, I think your focus is wrong. It's the socialist/communist movement of the 1930s that is in play and not the communist movement of the 1950s. First, let's deal with the 1930s and then later the 1950s. The Harlem Renaissance is interesting because, as Wintz implies, (which I find really strange but I can not go against such a powerful author), Robeson was an integral part of the Harlem Renaissance, even though he was not based in Harlem at the time. Contemporary critics of Robeson (specifically Kempton in the 1950s) attack Robeson for "not being there", but Wintz is right, you don't have to be there to be a part of it. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what this means, have I done anything wrong to upset you? - if I did, I apologize: "And don't assume that you know what Malik or I are thinking, or what we understand about PR. At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether any of us editors "get" PR. Or even (that may seem shocking to you) if the readers "get" PR. "

I think I know what you mean. You have to get bloody, you have to get inside Robeson's heart. You have to give him a heart and soul. Even in an encyclopedia article, his heart and soul were "central" to his his action. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

If the readers, at the very least, can not debate Robeson's legacy, then this article is a failure. 66.234.33.13 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Point being is this: his attempted suicide never entered the news. Hence, in now way shape or form should it be in this article. Pardon the phrase, but it was strictly a "family affair". Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the emotional attachment a previous editor has to mentioning Robeson's father was an "escaped slave", but I got it in the article: "His father, William, had been born a slave but escaped from a plantation in his teens". I am very sorry, but his father being an escaped slave does not belong in the introductory sentence of this article. And I am not, by an means, unconcerned with your criticism and I will keep focus on this part of his lineage. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Von Eschen clearly points out that Robeson was attacked for anti-colonialism. I guess someone wiped out my citation.
2. the source on the Robeson being attack for communism is FBI related. Um, with all due respect, do we really want to deal with Hoover in the 1940s (or 30s, 20s, 10s, 50s, 60s or 70s). Hoover had a warped mind w respect to communism.
3. Communism is dead. The fight is over, they lost.

Where is the citation that supports that Robeson was solely attacked because of Communism/Stalinism/Socialism in the 1940s as opposed to Dr. Von Eschen's claim that he was attacked because of anti-colonialism.

Produce the citation, but not from a mickey mouse NYT story of the 1940s, I want a respectable modern-day historian. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"The US government [had]revoked his passport and rejected his appeal because as a spokesperson for civil rights he had been 'extremely active in behalf ot the independence for the colonial peoples of Africa.'"<ref>Von Eschen: 181-185</ref>

and it sits in the body of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijustreadbooks (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1. I changed my mind. Now it goes in the introduction.
2. His statement rests in the Congressional record.
3. I am not using the word escaped in the intro because that denotes courage on his father, but I might reevaluate it because "former" and "escaped" are only 1 byte apart. I might be willing to lose a byte there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijustreadbooks (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"was the first occurrence of someone of African descent to take the role in Great Britain, in an otherwise all-white cast, since Ira Aldridge's 19th century portrayal"

1. I like abstract stuff
2. this means we have chosen what is important

It's fine for now. I want the reader to decide and we just give him a snipped and say, "here is the sources, go look at them for yourself". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijustreadbooks (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The following paragraph was removed from the lede:

His criticism of racism in the United States and affiliation with

Communists were deemed anti-thetical to US interests, bringing retribution from the executive branch of the US, scrutiny from the United States Congress, and various public condemnations. As a result, he was blacklisted

and ultimately financially decimated. In defiance, he refused to rescind his stances or his beliefs and remained opposed to the policies of the US government until his death.

I think it better summarized Robeson's situation than the current vague language about McCarthyism and refusing to recant his beliefs (what beliefs?). Please consider restoring this language. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

1. i know nothing about the scw
2. the purpose of that radio station, according to the book, was to attract aid and attention from the American public
3. therefore it was a propagandistic station
4. i do not have a sword in this battle.
5. they were trying to win over the hearts and minds of the American public. That's what the books says. Don't blame me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

maybe I need a better phrase than propagandistic??? but it is not suggested by me to be pejorative. If you got a better wording, then put it here and i'll put it in the article, or just put it in the article straight away - I'm not a great copy editor. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy Section.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of bytes, can be deleted. I think 1500 bytes are toast there. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

1500 bytes will be toasted. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"The US government [had]revoked his passport and rejected his appeal because as a spokesperson for civil rights he had been 'extremely active in behalf ot the independence for the colonial peoples of Africa.'"

I don't have the source for the quote since it is not online, but I think "ot" should be changed to "of" (or else add a [sic] if the error was in the original). It might also be nice to add a space between "[had]" and "revoked".

put your helmet on and get in the game, i am sure there are tons of typos in this article. If you feel something is nonsensical to the reader, then just change it. All citations will have to be double-checked at some point, but now is not the time (especially not for me). The floor is wide open.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

you're definitely right, it's "of" and not "ot", but I will not change it for 24 hours cause maybe you will put a hat on, lol Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that no one treats it seriously. The introduction awaits a serious editor at this time. The introduction requires the article to be completely researched. The 1940s and 1950s are empty. I just put in "good enuf for government work stuff-its fluff". I wish I could do more but I can not at this time.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to write the introduction last. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I ran bert bell up to 110k a year ago. I got it below 70k earlier tonight. I am aiming for 57k.

I think this is a 85k article. But there needs to be 4 complete introductory paragraphs in the intro. He is way, way, way too complex of an individual for anything less. Need 16-20 sentences. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Black actors and singers -> nope Black[s]
2. Black actors -> nope: Black[s]

I see no prejudice against African American who were non-performing artists or non-male performing African American artists. I delete and editorialize. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that Robeson's efforts could have saved the life of an present-day editor on wikipedia during their youth. I'm not really up to snuff on the CAA, but you have to watch out, Von Eschen is a total powerhouse. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Finally, I got a natural hook in the article to lynching. This is where I want the article to be. Robeson's view has not been offered yet, but it certainly exists. I'm very happy.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale delete. The Hollywood Bowl is not important to me: He sang "Ballad for Americans" at [[The Hollywood Bowl]] to the largest crowd in its history.<ref name="Duberman: 241">Duberman: 241.</ref> If this article does not have the 1920 Carnegie Hall stuff then I think the Hollywood Bowl is a waste of bytes. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

tackling that was really difficult....its a good solid rough draft wow...im exhaustesd.... i know there are some tremendous geniuses on wikipedia, all i can say if someone has the skills to break that down to 2 paragraphs, just give him or her the keys to wikipedia...3 paragraphs was a nightmare for me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

1949 was the total hangup of this article. It was just too many bytes. But that's what you're supposed to do, just add stuff. I looked at all the stuff and I chose a direction, right or wrong. I think the article can proceed now. I don't like my personal research, nor the article's research after wwII, but wtf can u do. 1949 is gone. Time to move forward with the caveat that there is always more research to be done! Undiscovered means more research needs to be done. !Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I left out of this article an article by the BAA, about Truman's press conference about the Peekskill Riots. I tried to find it in a Presidential biography - no luck. The BAA is the only paper i could find that mentioned a comment on this press conference and it was extremely pro-Robeson. But the BAA was not a major newspaper, although, if memory serves me right, the owner was vastly anti-Communist. Unless a presidential historian can be found that will mention it and analyze the press conference, then the article has to come in. I am very sorry but all the Truman biographers seem to be hagiographical (that's a shot across the bow of the Wikipedia editors doing the Truman article - pfft). Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's not relevant to this article. For the Peekskill riots article maybe. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

.<!--"The Negro People and the Soviet Union" a Robeson address at the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship on 1949-11-10-->

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijustreadbooks (talk • contribs) 04:24, 11 July 2012‎ (UTC)

There is no way in the world I would have missed the dates of his brothers' and sister's passing. And its not relevant. Furthermore, the DOB is not supported by those citations and neither are their middle names. Their middle names are way too detailed and their date of passing is also. Moving to revert. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I would have just reverted with an edit summary. The other editor then could have opened a talk page thread. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Letting this article mention that Robeson was cremated could be interpreted as well, unholy. It's a long story, but him being cremated is too detailed and I have to protect someone from trying to sneak something in. Bottom line is that it's too detailed. He was interred and that's it. I don't wanna get in a religious debate, it's just simply too detailed. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Certain people of certain religions equate acceding to be cremated with burning in hell. I am not getting involved in that debate. But the fact that he was cremated is too detailed and I don't want anyone symbolically bringing in any religious stuff. Bottom line, its a waste of bytes and too detailed -> delete. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree on this one. The reader can cope with the information. We don't have to explain or anything. It is a normal part of a biography to include the funeral, and this is one word. See John Lennon. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's too detailed to say he was cremated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cremation is not problematic for Robeson. It happened. Most readers today would see no problem. Include it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - it's a total waste of bytes. It does nothing to improve the article. If you want to put in "His body was cremated and his ashes" as opposed to "Robeson", then go ahead and I will not revert the edit. But it's a total waste of bytes and I'm not putting it in.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason you put in a Wikipedia article that his "body was cremated" is to highlight the idea the someone might tamper with his grave. Are you suggesting that someone would have tampered with his grave (which is not actually unreasonable - but there is no proof that his family thought that would happen that I know of), or he wanted to go Green-but there's no proof of that either. It is just a total waste of bytes that does nothing-he was dead. That's it.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Robeson's body was cremated and his ashes were interred
2. Robeson was interred
3. total waste of bytes
4. and you absolutely need where he was interred because that's respectful

Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest everyone wants to get information out about Robeson, whether it be the pro-Robeson or the anti-Robeson folks, I think the best way is to chop this article down to around 88K bytes- drastic yes- but then people can finish reading the whole article and then we provide the sources to allow the reader to investigate further. This article has not even got bloody yet. All the FA guidelines mimic the idea that the article should be digestible to the reader. We have to get the reader to read the entire article and putting in mickey mouse stuff like his body was cremated is not, I humbly suggest, effective.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that we could get into an argument over whether his body was cremated should be included in this article when the fact is Robeson stuck his neck out for Ben Davis and there is, really, nothing in this article about that time period is absolutely silly. How about that, how about Robeson going to bat for his friend?Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest this is not the time to get into an argument over cremation. There is a huge gap between 1937 and ...well the rest of his life. You folks should let this battle go for now. If we have bytes to spare when the article is properly researched, ok, whatever. But it is clearly off-topic, not important, and does absolutely not a darn thing to improve to understand an understanding of who Robeson was as a person. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you started the discussion about cremation by posting here. Which was a nice, polite thing to do. Everyone appreciates your commitment and energy. It's a collective effort, so it's good when other people chip in with their views. There's now a talk page consensus for mention of his cremation. If you still disagree, you could start a Request for Comment. Otherwise, it's you who needs to let it go. Not a problem, though. Sometimes editors agree, sometimes we disagree. Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Do whatever you want. I have the utmost respect for you and Malik, who has just been like an amazing editor. That being said, there's no way in the world I am putting in he was cremated. It's a total waste of bytes, tells damn near nothing about Robeson, and in no way shape or form can it be construed as making the article better. If you want to put it in, then put it in. I'll never put it in cause it's meaningless garbage. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The name of the game is to get that Kempton citation. That's really all I care about. It's a powerhouse statement by his biggest critic in the 1950s. It establishes NPOV. The only thing that can be more powerful that Kempton is translating Khrushchev's biography to see if he mentions Robeson. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

just a question: what kind of improvements are needed so that this article meets the good article criteria?-- altetendekrabbe  10:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say serious research between 1934 and 1957. Let me see gimme another post. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Itsmejudith wanted me to remove these from further reading. But honestly, all of these books need to be ascertained. It does not take long. It's maybe 5 minutes a book, maybe 3 hours, once you get your hands on them, this list might be outdated because I know I have acquired some of them:

• "Othello". New York Theatre Critics' Reviews 4 (25): 256–258. 1944.
• Beeching, Barbara J. (2002). "Paul Robeson and the black press: the 1950 passport controversy.". The Journal of African American History: 339+.
• Biondi, Martha (2007). "How New York changes the story of the civil rights movement.". Afro-Americans in New York Life and History 31 (2): 15.
• Halpern, Martin (1997). "I'm fighting for freedom': Coleman Young, HUAC and the Detroit African American community.". Journal of American Ethnic History 17 (1): 19+.
• Robeson, Paul Jr. (1981-11). "How My Father Last Met Itzik Feffer". Jewish Currents.
• Rocksborough-Smith, Ian (2007). "'Filling the gap': intergenerational black radicalism and the Popular Front ideals of Freedomways magazine's early years, (1961-1965)". Afro-Americans in New York Life and History 31 (1): 7+.
• Siegel, Lee (1998-12-14). "The Red and the Black". The New Republic 219 (24): 18-21.
• Spivey, Donald (1988, Winter). "‘End Jim Crow in Sports’: The Protest at New York University, 1940-1941". Journal of Sport History 15 (3): 282–303.
• Gates, Henry Louis Jr. and Jarret, Gene Andrew. ed. (2007). The New Negro: Readings on Race, Representation, and African American Culture, 1892-1938. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-691-12651-7
• Horne, Gerald (2009). Mau Mau in Harlem? The U.S. and the Liberation of Kenya. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  ISBN 978-0-230-61563-2
• Horne, Gerald (2008). The End of Empires: African Americans and India. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
  ISBN 9781592138999
• Lynch, Hollis Ralph (1978). Black American Radicals and the Liberation of Africa: The Council on African Affairs 1937-1955. Ithaca: Africana Studies and Research Center, Cornell University.
• Mantle, Burns (1944). The Best Plays of 1943-44: and the year book of the drama in America. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company
• Naison, Mark (2005). Communists in Harlem during the Depression. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  ISBN 0252072715
• Nesbitt, Francis Njubi (2004). Race for Sanctions: African Americans against Apartheid, 1946-1994. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  ISBN 0-253-34232-5
• Rimmer, Douglas and Kirk-Greene, Anthony (2000). The British Intellectual Engagement with Africa in the Twentieth Century. New York: St Martin's Press
  ISBN 031222950X

• Taffe, Sue (2005). Black and White Together: FCAATSI: The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders 1958-1973.
  ISBN 0702235113
• Tzouliadis, Tim (2008). The Forsaken: An American Tragedy in Stalin's Russia. London: Penguin.
  ISBN 1-594-20168-4

I mean it's a long list, but really once you get your hands on the books, it goes pretty quickly. I got Mantle, he's basically covered by Duberman. Lynch is basically covered by Von Eschen. Horne is a MUST get. Naison is a must get. Spivey is a must get. I read Taffe - not really pertinent. Siegel is a must get. Beeching a must get. Nesbitt is a must get. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I read Robinson's book. Too bad he died before my time, and that's all I have to say about that.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the template is for bad external links. i've tried to figure it out for a few weeks now. but if the paul robeson foundation did not pay their bills its a broken link and is not a link that should be deleted. undo the edit by the previous editor. it can make people unhappy to delete without prejudice items on the article page without going to the talk page or really being ironclad during their edit summary. if the paulrobesonfoundation did not pay its internet bill, we'll fix it and move it to another domain when they're up and running. that organization is clearly biased, but I want them in the ballgame. It's a gutcheck kind of thing. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If a link that is being used as a reference goes dead, we use the {{

WP:ELDEAD, however, dead external links should be removed unless they can be updated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

oh yeah, sorry, I just picked up your edit here. Long story short, Bell's biographer, listed Bell being a professional football player and playing against Jim Thorpe, and Bell's biographer was the only source. After spending hundreds of hours researching it, I tracked down that Bell was only a referee to the game. Umm, what a nightmare. So i blasted the "source", another wikipedia article, with dispute tags and dead link templates. That was an utterly exhausting experience.

Furthermore, Paul Robeson had some very powerful friends, there is no way in heck and the paul robeson foundation is going to disappear from this earth anytime soonIjustreadbooks (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

AH, ok, per your request deleted * [http://www.paulrobesonfoundation.org/ Official Website of the Paul Robeson Foundation]{{dead-link|date=July 2012}}Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

which I have certainly been guilty of in the past, but

1. if a sentence exists that has more than 1 wikification in it, besides it being in the introduction or the legacy, or the the introductory sentence of a paragraph, then I will immediately move to delete at least one of those wikifications
2. i don't care what it is or who it is or where it is; I will move to delete Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Robeson clearly states that what transformed him into a political activist was the SCW. It's clearly documented in Here I Stand. I have thought about it for months, the debate is over. The fact that his father was a slave has no major bearing in the discussion. The general rule is you have to take what Robeson said = publicly = at face value. He clearly states in Here I Stand that ....err Robeson is a pain in the butt...maybe before Congress he spoke the truth or maybe in Here I Stand he told the truth about his feelings.....I give up...which do I believe??? Why did Robeson become such a political activist circa the SCW??? Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone edited this article to state that Robeson was a member of the Hammond Pros in 1920. The editor made his edit on what he claims was evidence from the College Football Hall of Fame. I see no such evidence. I will doubleback and check the CFHOF. I have reverted the edit without prejudice. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

i believe my research in Robeson's football career in the 1920s is sincere. I see no failings in my research. Any statement that Robeson was a member of the Hammond Pros is rejected. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to record your research. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk)

00:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

These 2, what I believe are undeniable facts about Robeson, belong in the introduction. These are central points of his life. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether they are debatable or not is not the point.

* The first is an opinion, simply because it is unquantifiable. How do you measure "the pinnacle"? It also has a strong suggestion of

peacocking

. Rather than saying how great his success was, the article should be demonstrating his success. Leads should stick to facts, not opinions or empty plaudits that don't actually inform the reader of anything factual.

* The second I removed since it didn't seem to make sense. If he was retiring because of his ill-health, how could it be determined he was "persona non grata"? He was increasingly unable to work, so he was offered less work. Perhaps rephrasing things are mentioned would help?

Otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you restored the rest of my edit, rather than reverting the whole thing. I also addressed issues of over elaborate phrasing ("effectuated"), neutralised and tagged an unsourced but very bold claim ("an integral part of the development of popular music in Britain"), toned down grandiosity ("compassionate towards the the sufferings of all cultures and peoples") and other improvements. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

1. deleted: chiefly because of Robeson's popularity—Ferrer was still not a star, and Uta Hagen never really became one." - put Ferrer's metamorphosis into a star on his wikipedia page and likewise with Hagen. "chiefly because of Robeson's popularity" - is redundant because of "received a Donaldson Award[177] and was awarded the Spingarn medal by the NAACP" ....maybe I need to reword it say explicitly he received those awards because of his role in Othello????? Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There was some kind of bug that I could not access this talk page, but continuing from User Escape_Oribt's talk page:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. The talk page is buggy right now. I can see the history of your edits but there is no section on the talk page for me to respond on it (its probably some temporary bug w Wikipedia). You make some great points. I can not reply to them here because it's not fair. I will say this in response to your " I'd appreciate it if you restored the rest of my edit, rather than reverting the whole thing..." Yeah, it's saddening when your edits get reverted, I will reevaluate your edits again and explain my actions and hopefully we can come to some consensus. As far as "pinnacle" goes, that's cited and its "abstract" which I want the intro to be. Please do not make the mistake of deleting uncited, bold statements like "neutralised and tagged an unsourced but very bold claim ("an integral part of the development of popular music in Britain" ... I most assuredly have that sourced from a book in the Lincoln Center Performing Arts library, I just have to find the book and author AGAIN. It's very, very, very hard to keep track of all the books about Robeson. I mean, look at that book list, its sick. Best regards.

btw, i revert my own edits cause I change my mind. So please do not take it that I do not value your input. The biggest conundrum in the Robeson article is what impact did Robeson's knowledge of his father being a slave have on the impact of Robeson's life - its the major problem of the article and one in which some people are very emotional about. Best regards. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The intro has to stay abstract

The part about "integral part of the development of popular music in Britain" sits in a book at the Lincoln Center of the Performing Arts Library and the exact quote should be the "greatest contribution to British arts was to popular music there" <---I just have to find the book again. I had the book in my hands but it was such a strange quote that I did not annotate it. I spent a whole day (8 hours trying to find the book again, I failed. I will attempt again.) As far as the exact phrasing of "integral part", well, I have to find the book.

In response to other criticisms on the intro

The article is not close to being complete so the intro is not a major concern

The intro has to be abstract, albeit backed up with statements and citations in the body of the article.

User AlbertSM slapped a POV tag on this article. I don't really understand the tag because the professional authors wrote it and I just copy and pasted it. However, B&B's complaint with my copy and paste of Robeson was "unaware of the unfurling disaster of the Great Depression" which is meant to hold him accountable to being ignorant of what was happening in the U.S. Well, he was ignorant of it like over 100million people were. Delete without prejudice my copy and paste. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

2 consecutive sentence without including the word Robeson or implying Paul Robeson. This is the Paul Robeson article. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User itsmejudith did not want me to delete the young adults materials section. She is not active that I can see lately. The problem is that that section can be websearched by a 6 year old now just as easy as providing links here. I have to delete that section by the end of the year unless user Itsmejudith complains otherwise. It is a waste of bytes and just more to me keep track of - which I do not want to keep track of. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Young adults books section violates Wikipedia NOT. I mean it adds nothing to the article so it's toast. My apologies to user itsmejudith. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I reject out of hand that Robeson was permanently affected by the failure of his relationship with Yolanda Jackson because she was a white woman. I think Robeson was a world-class athlete, singer, etc and he had the capability to recover from this loss. This is not an article about a normal person. I realize this was the 1930s and a different time, but he was maybe 100 years ahead of his time. The name Yolanda Jackson is removed from this article without prejudice. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

IOW, i think the central thesis of Boyle and Bunie's book is complete garbage. Just so the author's no my viewpoint after studying the matter for a couple of years. :) Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What is undeniable is that Robeson did become more politically radical in the 1930s. Clearly the SCW, by his own admission was the turning point of his life. And you have to, have to, take him at face value. That's simply the rules of the game. Maybe I'll rethink thinks w respect to Jackson or Pollard. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I got a complaint that it's not exactly true.

Actually its not exactly precise. I got an author that says Robeson's most important contributions to GB in the 1930s was his music. I can not find the book. It's not the author Rachel Low. I got some books on order from nypl.org. So, I will find the book sooner or later. As far as fixing the edit, I don't care, it's the intro. The intro is garbage. I worry about it later. As far as it being not cited, I do not care, I read it, it exists, I just have to find it again - if I live long enough. The truth will come out. Right now, I am zeroing in on books on Folk Music of Great Britain. It just takes time to research this stuff.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope that is true. I am due to visit the library Wednesday. I have some new books coming in. I hope that quote is accurate. There are 166 books in the nypl system about Hammerstein. That edit is wonderful. I want that edit. I hope to find a citation for that edit. I hope to find that quote in one of the 166 books in the nypl. That would be great edit to have; I hope it is truthful and I trust that it is.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that one of Robeson's touchdown's in the NFL does not count. Clearly I have him scoring two touchdowns and the evidence is irrefutable. Maybe one touchdown did not count because he scored it from a defensive position? I think this needs to be closed out and I think we need the PRFA and/or the PFHOF to get involved. I'll send an email out. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A central thesis of all the football books I have read is that the coach purposely let a football player get beat up to see if he was tough enough to be a member of the tameteam.

I wrote this: "decided he had overcome the provocation and announced that he had made the team."

Someone edited it to this: "recognized his perseverance and allowed him onto the team."

This is a total injustice to football history.

Edit reverted without prejudice. I refute this edit.

And Sanford made an absolutely historic statement by "announcing he that he had made the team"

Stop sanitizing edits. My edit was recording a historic event.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

P.82 B&B "To make matters worse, Paul [sic] hated New York University. It was a long trek back and forth from Harlem to NYU..."

1. it's just wrong to call him Paul (even though he was only 18 or 19 it's just stupid to do that)
2. I have read another source, which seems to be to be more believable, that he lived in Brownsville, Brooklyn while he attended NYU
3. I challenge their usage of citation number 17 on that page. Specifically, I suspect they collocated the fact that he did not like NYU with where he lived while he attended NYU.

I think B&B's work is sloppy at this time. And Harlem to NYU is fast via subway, Brownsville to NYU is a pain.

As far as NYU is concerned, *scratch*, I did other work with respect to college tuitions in the 1920s (of course associated with football). If memory serves me right, NYU was up there with Stanford as the most expensive. So as to why Robeson did not like NYU, maybe, it's just possible, B&B's interpretation is a little light on analysis.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's too complicated for me to handle at this time. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Robeson Jr. p. 281. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

it's not that bad. i'm ok with it. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a young adult book. Young adult books have cartoons in it. It's just a barebones biography and it is not that bad. I think their claim that it is a young adult book is false, although it pales in comparison to Duberman's 1988 work. And Duberman's work should be taken for what it is - a major outdated piece of work - which is not a knock on him. It was 1988, 25 years ago. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, except Duberman writes about Robeson's association with Revels Cayton and trade unionism during the late 1940s and 1950s in that section of the book. Duberman's book may have been good for the 1980s, but it's really junk nowadays. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the speech in Robeson's life that says he thought the Broadway Othello was the greatest thing in his life? Where is the Robeson speech where Robeson says the Broadway Othello Donaldson Award was the greatest thing in his life? This is his views and his biography and this is not the wikipedia article entitled "how people best remember Paul Robeson". He wrote his life. I just paraphrase. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Ijustreadbooks (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I never heard of it. Delete without prejudice. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Robeson is such a complex individual. The information is just overwhelming. Clearly, the tide had turned against him during WWII. The fact of the matter was that Peekskill was an afterthought and the Paris Peace Conference, if not accurately accounted, then it was clearly exploited. Robeson was a target during WWII (principally by the FBI), however there were no resources available to attack him at the time, but he was targeted. This is the view I will take in this article. It's going to be a problem because I view McCullough's biography of Truman hagiographical.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are new books on folk music of Great Britain in the 20th Century. The fact of the matter is it appears Duberman was over his head with Robeson. I have been the harshest critic of Duberman, but you know what, someone had to take the first step in dealing with this historic figure. Duberman, if you are still alive, good job bro. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Robeson never played with the Hammond Pros. I don't know who is messing with the facts here. But

• Carroll, John M. (1992). Fritz Pollard: Pioneer in Racial Advancement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  ISBN 0-252-01814-1

is an impeccable source. Anyone that edits this article to say Robeson first played for any other team in the NFL but the Akron Pros, his edit will be reverted without prejudice unless he comes to the talk page first. No one should mess with Robeson's NFL career without coming to the talk page to discuss it first. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, it's not historically important what he actually said for this article. If you want to argue about what he said or did not say or if you want to go question the integrity of journalism in the 20th Century, then go to that Wikipedia article. If there is not such a Wikipedia article, then make one up because this can go in there. It's just a waste of bytes. Noone should take what the news media printed in the 1950s as gospel....Delete Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, until the day he died, Robinson rued the day he testified before the HUAC. If he had to do it over again he would have testified otherwise. There is nothing I can do. It is clearly spelled out in Robinson's autobiography. Robinson just did a bad job there. There's nothing I can do. It's abundantly clear that if Robinson was given another go, then he would have responded differently. Robinson is sacrosanct in American sports history, but he bungled that one.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not have a problem with him as a source. My only criticism is that he believes that his father was the best thing since slice bread in what his father did. But besides the mkultra conspiracy stuff, I have no problem with anything that Robeson Jr. said of his father. Historically I find no fault with him. The only complaint I would have is that Robeson Jr. might say his dad was the greatest singer ever and most critics would say that Robeson was an above-average to excellent singer. This is a minor complaint. I am very sorry, but Robeson Jr. is a valid source with the exception he overrates his dad's artistic skills.......<---slightly to sizeably. If Robeson Jr. says his father was a 10, then his father was a 5 to 7. I want to knock Robeson Jr, but I honestly can not, I like him as a historian. I am really sorry but I think he is a valid historian and a valid source. (okay his "great forerunner" days were sloppy, but he was a kid then :) )Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Was there some kind of competition to use the longest possible words in the first para? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.98.24 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

the introduction of this article is garbage. i can not waste my time with it. i will not respond to criticism of it. it's just garbage. after the article matures, then, it's time to look at the intro. And the same is true for the legacy. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

malik writes: according to xyz: "blah" (cited by xyz)

i write: "blah" (cited by xyz)

you can not do that. my citation covers who wrote it. I don't know what wikipedia rule you are going to pull on me, but the citation covers the statement. There is no reason for "according to xyz". You are just wasting bytes. Your only recourse is to counter with another professional writer, which I would appreciate and welcome. I do not think you are able to do that at this time, no disprespect intended. If you can than do it I think it would improve the article and I welcome the addition, but I will delete all wasteful bytes. I construe your edit as wasting bytes. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Malik's way is correct. It's good not to waste bytes but you have to respect citation conventions. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

well, tell Malik to put in hidden comments not to touch what he edited, then I won't mess with it...I have no understanding why you would write: According to Jack, "blah"(cited by Jack), its just a waste of bytes, its silly. If that's what you guys want, fine. Ijustreadbooks (talk)

there's 8000 things wrong with this article. And I have justifiably come under attack for my putting in the introduction paragraph that Robeson played an important part to the development of music in Great Britain. Malik and your complaint is miniscule. That complaint is serious and valid. I'll fight with you guys later on that. But I will hold the fort on that battle of Robeson's impact of the music of Great Britain. The book exists and I held it in my hands. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

quite honestly, i mean, I would have to write the "ny amsterdam news says this", "that guy says this", "this guy says that". The only person to mention is Paul Robeson Jr. because it highlights he might/should be biased. I mean let's get real. That's his dad. I don't have a problem with Paul Robeson Jr. except for the mkultra stuff. But I can't touch that cause, Wikipedia is 50% a place to put conspiracy theories. Ughh. I might have to put in the ny amsterdam news in the ensuing talk page section because, *shrug*, the grammar does not fit without it. I am sorry Duberman's book in 30 years old. So, his name will not get mentioned in the article (was that Malik's complaint?) And I failed to see why any author's name should ever get mentioned in any wikipedia encyclopedia article. If you want to drop names, write a full-length book and not at 1550 byte encyclopedia article.

And, that's such a trivial complaint. There's no research on Robeson's impact to the music of Great Britain. And that is very, very, very, very sad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

wholesale deletion is prepared...this is not an article about the history of black or white newspapers in america....i'll put the sources in that's just about it...some of the stuff i can't delete because the 1940s, 1950s and the 1960s were ....kinda crazy....Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC) In any event enough for now Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't editorialise, so no "the white press said... But the black press said". If one of the biographers says just that, then we could attribute the statement. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

here is what knucklehead Duberman should have wrote:

"The New York Amsterdam News typified the sentiment in the black America Press when it wrote: Robeson's life would always be a challenge and a reproach to white and Black America"

So now I have to fish around what to say, so i wrote: The New York Amsterdam News editorialized on his passing that Robeson's saga would "...always be a challenge and a reproach to white and Black America"

Not really the same, not really good and not really precise. Duberman is the primary biographer and he should have analyzed this properly. Bottom line he did not. I need to look at what Paul Robeson Jr. wrote. It's been awhile since I read his book. Duberman bungled that.

Oh, happy holidays :) Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Murray Kempton is Robeson's greatest contemporary antagonist in the Press. He is by all accounts not a racist. All this stuff needs work. Duberman should not have generalized to include mickey mouse newspapers in backwater, usa. Duberman just bungled this. Duberman is just a knuckleheadIjustreadbooks (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"inability of white America to tolerate a black maverick"

Duberman the idiot; " to bend" you freaking idiot. WTF is that supposed to mean you idiot, " to bend" You are an idiot Duberman. You are a bad, bad, bad, bad, author, really bad. Bend to what you idiot. You are just such a bad author.

the exact quote is to "tolerate a black maverick who refused to bend." - of course mr. knucklehead provides no context. I mean really Duberman is a bad author. really, really, really, bad author, i mean really bad. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I know you feel strongly about your point, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy concerning

WP:BLP

applies to Talk pages and edit summaries as well as articles. In short, you can't call a living writer an idiot.

If it helps, I think the context makes clear that Duberman is saying Robeson "refused to bend" to white America's will. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Sagacious. Point taken. I got a little frustrated. The fact of the matter is that I can't find an author to say that black newspapers said this and white newspapers said this and I can not cherry pick editorials from black newspapers or white newspapers. And the fact of the matter is black newspapers did have one pov and white newspapers had another pov, but I can interpret a poem written by a 3rd party in Duberman's book wherein Duberman writes: "A black prisoner in the Marion, Illinois, penitentiary perhaps summed it up as as well as anyone in a poem.."

poem here...

"...They knocked the leaves from his limbs,..." blah blah blah,

I mean c'mon, I've put in an honest effort here, let me see how I can phrase this, how can I work with that?

There's another book that writes on the interpretation of Robeson's life in the press and, fortunately, I can not find it so I don't know the author's name, but that unnamed author is an idiot for doing such a bad job.

Point taken, I will not call Duberman an idiot anymore. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary post-mortem reflections on Robeson's life revealed that "<nowiki>[t]he white [American] press", after decades of harassing Robeson, "...ignored the continuing inability of white America to tolerate a black maverick, ...downplayed the racist component central to his persecution [during his life]", as they "paid him gingerly respect and tipped their hat to him as a 'great American,' [and ascribed the vituperation leveled at him during his life] to the Bad Old Days of the Cold War.^[3] </nowiki>

Duberman destroys this whole section. I can not include the white american press perspective of his life without including the black american press perspective on Robeson's life. Duberman explains the black american perspective on Robeson's life by putting in a poem by an unknown 3rd party author to allude to, or to symbolize what Robeson's life meant from the black american perspective. I only read maybe 5 poems in my life. I have no idea wtf this dumb mf is talking about. A historian should not use allegories, metaphors, symbolism or whatever just right the stuff in plain english. If i put in what I think Duberman means it becomes original research. One sentence only 20 words: the Amsterdam news typified blah blah...done.... bad job by Duberman Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"effectuated his deprecation"

Trying to sound too intelligent. Needs to be taken down a notch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.200.133 (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to have to hammer her. Her book/doctoral thesis/master's thesis at the Schomburg Center offers no concrete example, whatsoever, what the CAA did to help support African colonial movements. Maybe, i missed it because my reading comprehension is poor. She has to provide some concrete evidence that the CAA was paramount in supporting African colonial independence. She can not say, paraphrasing, that the CAA was the greatest advocate of colonial independence during the 1940's. I do not believe she has provided proof of that. I want to see money went from the CAA to advocates of independence or money advertising African colonial independence. There is nothing in here book/doctoral thesis. I want something concrete. If i have the opportunity, I will doublecheck my work, but the onus is on her and my memory. At this time, I prefer to ignore her. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that movie for the first time last night. His nose looks to have been clearly broken. There is no author that mentions this. But I am now aware of it. It's important because of suicides of former players in the NFL. If you look at Robeson's caricature in that movie, as compared to that of on stamps or youtube, clearly his nose is not shown to be broken. Again, I am not putting this in the article because it violates some wikipedia rule for original research. But, I do know about it and his nose as portrayed in that movie is shown to have been at one time clearly broken. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

this dang Robeson is a pretty complicated guy. This is my favorite song of all time because I am a gigantic Van Morrison fan. I caught some heat because of my statement that Robeson had a huge impact on British music of the 20th century. I am most certainly gunning, god willing, to hammer that out. I have to recant/delete any statements in this article that Robeson had a significant impact on the music of the 20th century in England, but **** that. He did, imho. Just need more research. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's just recount the facts of his life, please. Others can decide on his significance. I keep thinking you need to be writing a full biography of him, not a Wikipedia article. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

i am not able to edit the article. It's kinda of frustrating because I think there is a sufficient amount of authors to not only make this a wikipedia featured article, but just a dang amount of good authors out there to make this a historically significant article. i am very really sorry. i apologize. i wish i could offer more, i wish i could do better, but at this time I can not. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

any author pre 2000 is deprecated by me,they are all suspect to being deficient. I am sorry. Any author pre 2000 will be relegated. Authors after 2000 will be treated seriously, and authors pre-2000 will not be treated seriously. I have enough of Duberman's garbage. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you of being deficient, therefore I will ignore you. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This article has some amazingly overcomplex phrases in it. As a holder of a first class degree in English from a top UK university, I think it's too bloody complex. E.g. "The Spanish Civil War effectuated his deprecation of his commercial career in order to proselytize against Fascism and social injustices." Do we want to stop uneducated people from reading this? Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are a right bro. What I wrote is completely stupid. I'll try to rephrase it and if you don't like my rephrasing, jump in and suggest an alternative, I don't have a first class degree in English (or 2nd or 3rd class degree in English) from anywhere. I think that your criticism is spot on. Good job.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, someone already kind of fixed it in the introductory paragraph. I will remove that Wikipedia thingie at the start of the page because it's a shot at me and user itsmejudith addressed it.

If the English major has future complaints, then he is more than welcome to address them and put back in that Wikipedia thingie, his criticism is welcome and appreciated. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Leroy Robeson (pron.: /ˈroʊbsən/ ROHB-sən April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was an American singer and actor who became involved with the Civil Rights Movement. At university,"

At university, what, where, when, how, someone needs to fix this, it's completely disjointed. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The next paragraph explains that it was Rutgers, but I agree that the lede needs to be consolidated, and redundant content should be removed. I'll be happy to have a go if you don't wish to do it yourself. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 15:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox within an infobox calls the subject 'Paul "Robey" Robeson'. I've never seen that before. When was he called 'Robey'. The article doesn't mention this. --Kleinzach 14:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Some sources describing his college football career -- this one, for example -- mention that his nickname at Rutgers was "Robey"; and the sub-info box in question summarizes his football stats. All the same, it's trivia, it's not explained in the body of the article (as you pointed out), and it's not particularly encyclopedic IMHO -- so I would vote for removing it. Other opinions? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 05:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that it would be better to remove it. --Kleinzach 14:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Any others? If no one objects or there is no further comment, I will remove it in a few days. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate nickname & retitled info box for clarity, as discussed above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Removing the nickname Robey in the infovox is wise. Good job. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"His portrayal of Othello in London has been considered the high point in English Shakespearean theatre in the 20th century.[neutrality is disputed][citation needed] "

The citation is from Morrison. Morrison, Michael A. (May 2011). "Paul Robeson’s Othello at the Savoy Theatre, 1930". New Theatre Quarterly 27 (2): 114–140. doi:10.1017/S0266464X11000261.

Best practice is for the introduction to be more abstract. I wrote a very concrete sentence. On the other hand, maybe I want the sentence to be "in your face" at this time. This is not a GA nor a FA, so I see no reason to change the sentence at this time. And, YAY, Bert Bell is a GA now! Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The "neutrality" tag is ignored by me (I wrote the sentence in the introduction). That's a complaint that the introduction is incorrectly written from an encyclopedia style. Morrison is the source and its not neutrality pov or lack of citation; it's a poorly written introduction complaint. Please remove those gizmos and put in some gizmo that says that the introduction does not meet wikipedia criteria. I am not putting a citation in the intro. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry. The article is poorly written which I am to blame for. First write the body of the article and then go back and fix the intro. If you have not read Morrison's piece on Robeson's Othello, then I am sorry. I will try to come up with a better way to word that sentence which will not be so "in your face" for an introduction section. If you have any complaints about the factual accuracy of that sentence, then please direct them at Morrison and not me. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get that sentence out of the introduction. I do not know how I can reword it; but I will get it done. This article is unlike many other articles on wikipedia in that you have to write the introduction early on in the article - this makes it much more difficult that other wikipedia articles. My apologies. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the page number. Long story short: it's on one of my windows pcs that I converted to Ubuntu and I have no clue where Morrison's work is. But it's documented. Wikipedia rules clearly state I just have to just provide a best effort source to my citation and my citation is Morrison and Morrison, Michael A. (May 2011). "Paul Robeson’s Othello at the Savoy Theatre, 1930". New Theatre Quarterly 27 (2): 114–140. doi:10.1017/S0266464X11000261 That's the wikipedia rules. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/intothemusic/big-paul/4623906 Does anybody knwo whether this Nicknmae is significant, or if the journalist at ABC is making it up? --MarmotteiNoZ 04:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, you really don't need to use hundreds (looks like it) of [citation needed] tags. Use a {{refimprove}} tag instead. The article is almost unreadable in certain areas. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 21:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

first order of business is to find that murray kempton citation. second order of business is to move non-legacy stuff out of the legacy section. 3rd order of business is to tuck away the, arguably, insignificant awards about postage stamp recognition and the like into a cf. with something more abstract like he received awards from the u.s. congress. The article must finish with the murray kempton citation because by all accounts he was the one that hounded him the most through the 1950s. Having Susan Robeson's actions in response to his father's legacy to do this, or that, belongs in the Susan Robeson article - not that one. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

and yes, the article is...no, it is not unreadable, it is very, very unpleasant to read, i did a really really bad job.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Beginning in 1978, Robeson's films were finally shown on American television, with ''Show Boat'' debuting on cable television in 1983.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}

Not a high quality edit. Need to see an author say something specific about him being censored on TV. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice, put in the Susan Robeson article if you so desire:

In 2010, Susan Robeson launched a project by [[Swansea University]] and the [[Welsh Assembly]] to create an online learning resource in her grandfather's memory.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}} Ijustreadbooks (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Even a picture of a stamp would use up too much space, but talking about it is even worse. Delete: The U.S. Postal Service issued a 37 cent stamp honoring Robeson in 2004.<ref>{{cite web | title = Stamp Series | publisher = United States Postal Service | url = http://beyondtheperf.com/stamp-series | accessdate = Sept. 2, 2013}}</ref> Ijustreadbooks (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice, put this on the page of the director or the producer or the writer of the documentary: ''[[Paul Robeson: Tribute to an Artist]]'' won an [[Academy Award]] for best short documentary in 1980.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}} Ijustreadbooks (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Good. That's what I want. The content of those 5 paragraphs is nothing I can do about now. I have been away way too long. But 5 paragraphs is what it should be. (Ok, maybe a good editor could get it to 4) Be apprised, if you look at the Bert Bell article I was attacked because I was verbose in explaining something in the GA review and the reviewer said he would not make it a FA because I used an impressive "vocabulary". What he really meant was I used 300 words to say what could have been said in 80 words cause I am a crummy writer. I delete bytes. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The legacy section was atrocious. Now it is only extremely bad. I am comfortable with it and after I get the all-important Kempton citation I can go back to doing basic research.

1939-1945 should be 2 paragrahs 1923-1927 5 paragrahs ??? that's bad Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a complete waste of bytes: Nothing in this article says that Robeson was a bad husband and if something in this article said that then I would have to include this:

Essie experienced complications from the birth,<ref>Duberman: 110; cf. Robeson 2001: 147, Gillam: 49.</ref> and by mid-December, her health had deteriorated dramatically. Ignoring Essie's objections, her mother wired Robeson and he immediately returned to her bedside.<ref>Boyle and Bunie: 186; cf. Duberman: 112, Robeson 2001: 148.</ref> Essie completely recovered after a few months.{{citation needed|date=May 2012}}

No author has ever said Robeson was a bad husband. Delete, waste of bytes. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey I love Bert Bell. But I can not see the legacy section of this article being less than 5 paragraphs. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of what his efforts were.

That just means the research in this article is absolutely terrible. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To the editor who reverted my edits: The sentence is completely redundant and it is a waste of bytes and it too low brow for the legacy section. The legacy section has to be concerned with his ideas and not mickey mouse stamps and the like. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What's important is he did achieve success in his life and for some reason he eschewed fame and glory to make a stand. The cardinal rule is you really have to take Robeson at his word in here i stand unless incontrovertible proof exists that he was lying. His legacy was: Was he right or wrong to make that stand - if in fact he was sincere in his efforts. That's legacy. Mickey mouse stamps are not his legacy. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I only went back 3 months on edits so far. It's amazing how many people are involved in this article. I really thought almost all of the edits so far were spot on - except for the occasional vandalism. The introduction is a disaster, childhood and rutgers and columbia is okay, harlem renaissance is too long...show boat too long, then it gets ugly. UgghhIjustreadbooks (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to attack this section first. It looks to be the easiest to do because there will not be many sources and I think I can get it down from 3 paragraphs to 2. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User Malik Shabazz (it's been almost 2 years now so maybe I have the name wrong) wisely castigated me for criticizing Duberaman's book on Wikipedia, but I have thought about it his book for 2 years or so and I recently figured out Duberman's rationale in his book.

I can't say why I think Duberman put the content in his book that he did because I don't want to get yelled at again. (But I learned it from an event that happened in sports history within the last 2 years). Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about where Duberman is coming from. He's a source, a good one too. He's entitled to his perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda important to see why he wrote the book that he did. After two years, I believe I have figured it out.

What is his book, an investigative report on Robeson's life, a critique on his life, a perspective on the culture of the 1920's and 1930's? That being said, my post is only an apology to Duberman for not properly understanding his book. His book caused me a lot of frustration cause he didn't say "x,y,and z". His book is what it is. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What do people say if I just take them out? Leave them in the main headings, just take them out of the subheadings? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been away for 18 months. I finished what I attempted to accomplish. I guess I came down hard on the previous editor. I apologize. I should have been more tactful. I am watching a playoff baseball game now so I do not want to edit the article. Priority 1 is now, as it was last week, as it was 2 years ago is to get that Murray Kempton citation. The legacy section is a complete disaster. Ideally, I would like to get it to 5 paragraphs with the recognition that it really should be 4 paragraphs-if there were good editors involved. Any new edits to the legacy article is to make it readable and not to make it high quality.

The Robeson legacy section is going to be a monster to edit. I am in no way in a position to expect any content I add to the legacy section to have any staying power. For example, I have not ever found, what the GA reviewer of the Bert Bell article wisely called me out for, quoting an "non-authorative" source in the legacy section that would attack Robeson for the choices he made in his life.

I don't want to edit the Robeson legacy section right away. I just want to make it readable. Plan of action looks to be

1. get murray kempton citation
2. see if anyone complains about me editing legacy section to make it readable (pull the new editor in if necessary)
3. deal with the Robeson Othello in London (the author should have come out with a book by now - very worried that my contribution in the legacy section is not factually accurate)
4. then really pick up where I left off - and I think that was about 1933.

Everything I have written so far has been easy. After 1937 or so, it get's 1000 times harder. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for seeking input from other editors. Can I again suggest that you use your sandbox for test edits first? As well, my original concern was that you deleted and trivialized Robeson's honor of having a U.S. stamp in his likeness. This is in fact a very large honor and I'd ask you not to remove it. Thanks.

talk

) 14:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think after 3,000 edits, I should be okay without going to the sandbox for this type of edit. I think what you fail to understand is:

1. what a powerful figure Robeson was in the 20th Century
2. you reverted my edit without going to the talk page
3. you included the phrase "37 cent" which trivializes Robeson

I will leave in the stamp statement for now, per your request. There is no real chance it will survive in the long run because it is political mumbo jumbo and too trivial. What is important about Robeson his ideas and not his rewards from a political party.Ijustreadbooks (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to revert my edits back to before Beyond My Ken got involved. Unfortunately I do not know how to do that easily, I will leave in User Richard Apples's request to include that Paul Robeson had a stamp named in his honor though I do not believe it will last. The legacy section rebuild is not to make it done, but to make it at least readable. Right now, the legacy section is a total nightmare. After the legacy section is readable I can drive to Philadelphia and do some homework on Bert Bell and I can begin anew on the Robeson article.

As bad as this article is and even after getting into a fight with the Wikipedia editors on the Malcolm X article, I think with some good research we can go forward. 1923-1939 looks not terrible. After that, it's going to get ugly. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of a section title name. This is kind of important because it is the most important moment in his life. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A three or four years ago I referenced this article for a thesis and it was readable to point where it might be featured with a star. I noted that Zora Neale Hurston is being featured on Google. How disappointing to consider this page would be what millions would read if Paul Robeson were to appear on Google. It clearly has a huge problem with ownership, false references (a few pages do not contain the material referenced or quoted) and weasel words. Anything that can be done? Is it worth trying to make any additions? This pubic figure deserves a better page.Showmanlee (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmanleee (talk • contribs)

I've only just started watching this page, so some comments.

• If you write articles about high profile and controversial figures, you have to be prepared to maintain them forever. All articles slip over time, but a biography of someone like Robeson is bound to get more edits, good or bad, than, say
  Fiji Parrotfinch
  !
• You are at liberty to remove material that is not supported by its reference. I don't know if there is any history of edit warring here, but as an uninvolved admin (I'm only watching because of a comment I made on the Alan Turing talk page), I'm prepared to take any actions that may be necessary to maintain the objectivity of the article.
• You are obviously editing with a new username, so I can't judge your experience. I have no sources on Robeson, but I've done a few FAs and could help with preparation if needed.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If Gus Hall's speech was all that was necessary to "prove" that Robeson was a Communist, how come no reputable historian has accepted it as such? Hint: Hall's veracity, such as it is. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Malik Who's the judge of "reputable historians?" So you refuse to accept the published statement by the chairman of the CPUSA that Robeson was a member? What's with that? That Hall made the statement is undeniable. I've see the doc, myself from the inter-library loan service. I will put back Hall's 1998 statement and let's let the readers decide. We do NOT want readers thinking that we have some underlying "agenda" in hiding what Gus Hall clearly said, right? As someone who admires Robeson and lives in his home town, Princeton, NJ, I find your take on all this rather tiresome, myself. What's there to hide. Hall clearly SAID Robeson was a CPUSA member. But you don't want to believe Hall, himself. Why is that? SimonATL 15:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You would need independent secondary sources to cover this issue. If Gus Hall's comment was reported in, say, the New York Times, that would do. We would of course only note what Hall said and not imply anything about whether PR actually was a member or not. The parallel of the SACP claiming membership of Nelson Mandela is interesting. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to show that Gus Hall's comments were reported in a reliable secondary source in order to justify inclusion. Provided that is done, all that needs to be included is a sentence somewhere saying that Hall said Robeson was a "secret" Communist Party member. Incidentally, had he been a "secret" member, then Hall could have offered no documentary evidence, since none would have been created. TFD (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Per several sources, what made CPUSA membership secret was that the membership number was not publicaly revealed and the annual dues were collected in secret. In the published speech which is at several university and public libraries, Hall said he met with Robeson to discuss party news and to collect his dues. The CPUSA headquarters would have Hall's party records.SimonATL 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide any of these "several sources?" TFD (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit added the following error messages to the article:

• Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEDuberman198924" is not used in the content (see the help page).
• Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEMarable2005171.3F" is not used in the content (see the help page).
• Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEDuberman198941" is not used in the content (see the help page).
• Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEGoldstein200862.2C_66.2C_88" is not used in the content (see the help page).
• Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEWade-Lewis2007108" is not used in the content (see the help page).}}

107.10.236.42 (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Way to miss the forest to look at the trees, dude. Lfstevens (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Many people made dramatic improvements on this article since its inception. I started out with the hope of getting it in a decent shape until 1933, then I thought it would be beyond me. I hit a brick wall in the 1945-1949 (which you could argue maybe it was weak during WWII because of naturally and expected weak resources during WWII). Circa 1945-1949 events surrounding his life became very tumultous (and I kind of blew a gasket when someone made an edit in the legacy section - it happens in Wikipedia). Hopefully, there are better sources during the Truman Era nowadays. To stop editing at the most critical juncture robs momentum for would be editors but there looks to be 2 stalwart editors involved. For research, I would look at any in depth books about politicians' actions at the federal level, the status of the translation from Russian to English of Stalin's actions, and motives, (only the 1st volume was release circa 2013), and a proper accounting/history of the media's portrayal of Robeson/"subsersives"/Communists in America during this time. The feeling I had of the perspective of historians of Robeson during this time, with respect to the federal government was that the federal government let him die on the vine, and the historians also let him die on the vine and would not give any opinion - one way or the other. It was not that he became a non-person by the federal government - it was that historians would not weigh in, one way or another. It's the most difficult time period - there's only one way to hit this - you have to hit the library hard. Best of luck and happy holidays. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And if someone makes a legacy edit while you are doing/researching 1945-1949 - just ignore it. Stay chronological in your research and your posts. Once you make it past 1949 - it should be a cake walk - best of luck Ijustreadbooks (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a few cites and a quote from a 1968 book by Lamparski. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious how this article determines paul robeson's vocal type. Was he not a profundo? I believe he goes below C2 in this recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25orekG1-u0 XBiophagex (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi XBiophagex. This article and its authors, myself included, didn't decide how to classify Robeson's voice. We wrote what reliable sources say about the subject. Robeson is usually described as a bass or a bass-baritone. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but what I'm after is what sources were used to determine his vocal type. I can't find any references for it in the article. XBiophagex (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It occurs to me that not all voices are easily categorisable, if a source exists describing his range, as well as his category, it would be worthy of note. This isn't the sort of info that maks immediate sense to me, but it does to the more musically literate. Pincrete (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this piece from the New York Times helps? JezGrove (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Might this be worth mentioning, that Robeson had a close relationship over many years with the miners of South Wales:

http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/Life/international_relations/paul_robeson.asp

Also, The Proud Valley, "a 1940s film about a black American miner and singer who moved to Cardiff to find work has been remastered and is going on tour. Filmed in south Wales, The Proud Valley stars Paul Robeson, who is being celebrated as part of the British Film Institute's (BFI) Black Star season."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-37951942 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.235.174 (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I added a reference to two Kurdish poems written on Paul Robeson in 1954, in the "In popular culture" section. Simko Destan (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

On Saturday morning, March 11, Scott Simon mispronounced Paul Robeson's name on NPR: he said “Robeson” with three syllables instead of two. Today, I stopped in at the Paul Robeson Cultural Center at Penn State. Sure enough, both people at the front desk also pronounced “Robeson” with three syllables instead of two.

It needs to be emphasized more strongly that Paul Robeson pronounced his last name with only two syllables, as he explains in this link:"The name is pronounced in two syllables only: Robe-son."

I do not know whether the IPA version “/ˈroʊbsən/” implies two syllables. Even if it does, most people will not know whether it does or not. So, it is clear that more emphasis on the correct pronounciation is required.

Accordingly, unless there are persuasive objections, I intend to add a citation to the beginning of the Paul Robeson page to document that his last name has only two syllables, before the correct pronounciation is totally lost to history. I will also state explicitly “two syllables”.

If the format of my citation is incorrect, feel free to correct it. MathPerson (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

From my limited IPA literacy, our name appears to be correct and I'm surprised that anyone would pronounce it any other way than 2 syllables, though some similar Irish names are tri-syllabic. I think we are in the business of posting correct info, rather than remedying wrong info, unless there is some controversy about the pronounciation, so any text would need to be phrased as his response to that uncertainty. Pincrete (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Like Pincrete, I'm barely "literate" in IPA but the indicated pronunciation is two syllables. I've also heard people (mis)pronounce the name as Robe-uh-son. I'll try to help next time I have access to a computer (I'm currently editing on my phone), but take a look at the first sentence of W. E. B. Du Bois for an example where we show both IPA and simple English pronunciation. I think this article once had it as well; you might want to look at the edit history. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

PS -- The Du Bois article used to have a section about the proper spelling and pronunciation of his name, which is widely butchered. It seems to have vanished, or maybe it's still there and I just need to clean my glasses. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely off-topic, but many years ago, a now long ex-girlfriend of mine worked at a hospital in N. London. All the staff there (inc many W.Indians) referred to the newly dedicated Mary Seacole ward as the 'Mary Sea-coe-lay' ward, assuming her name was African, rather than the name of her British ex-husband. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

MShabazz, you have an excellent memory. Years ago, I inserted information about the pronounciation, but somebody kept deleting it. There is, indeed, controversy, or at least ambiguity, about how to pronounce "Robeson": some families do say it in three syllables. For years, there was a Robeson's Department Store in Champaign, IL; they pronounced it with three syllables. MathPerson (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MathPerson, for the kind words about my memory. Would you mind telling my wife; she has a much different opinion. The simple English pronunciation was removed without explanation in March 2015 and evidently nobody noticed until today. I'll restore it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Malik Shabazz. May I suggest that the pronounciation be documented with a footnote? The reason for this is, declarative statememts that are likely to be challenged are supposed to be supported with documentation. Since the mis-pronounciation seems almost universal, I believe it is necessary to justify why Wikipedia claims that it's only two syllables. This link is a piece of supporting evidence directly from Paul Robeson himself. Here is how I would do it but you may have more expertise than me: ^[4] MathPerson (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. I managed to find The Literary Digest, but all they published was the two-syllable pronunciation, not the whole quote from Robeson. I added both pages as sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Paul Robeson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=59
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65r52lUNU?url=http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/04-12-119.pdf to http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/04-12-119.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.search.proquest.com/docview/226176207
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6PLj9XvLc?url=http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners to http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810160707/http://beyondtheperf.com/stamp-series to http://beyondtheperf.com/stamp-series

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)