Talk:Paul Robeson

Photograph

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

According to its source, it was taken by Gordon Parks. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Lenin Peace Prize

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

The Soviet Union, Stalin and Communism

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

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

Much Work Needed

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

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

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

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

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

Labor Article on Robeson Linking to His Main page

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

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

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

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

Keep up the good work. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Feffer quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence

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

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

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

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

Change photo

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

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

Stop messing Up This article...EVERYONE

Plaese, it was actually looking good until today. Is it everyon'e goal to just stick POVs to defend white supremacy or to not revert the edits after the page was messed up? This is sad, i put so much effort into it. Catherine Huebscher 9:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, and this to Robeson fans as well as right wing apologists, if you are not sitting at home with at least three or four books on Robeson that you have read at least ten times then I strongly advise not contributing to this article. It will just look like an incompetent mess which is what the work i did has been turned into by people with scant knowledge of this man.Catherine Huebscher 9:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, take a chill pill. And while you're at it, please read WP:OWN. Also, remember to assume good faith and be civil in your edit summaries. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean but I don't like seeing Paul Robeson, who was already erased from the media be erased again. Catherine Huebscher 8:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to delete the article Catherine, so you don't need to worry about that. But what Malik said is correct. As it says every time you open the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it." This is a collaborative project, and the point is a bio that is neutral, not one that refutes or defends "white supremacy" as you put it. We accomplish that by working together. Steven Walling (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why there all neutral and well cited facts in the work (none of it from CP rags OR American Ren) I've done is cited carefully and why the article finally does justice to it's subject after years of povs, no real structure, huge pieces missing and random cites. It would be a dishonor to Robeson's spirit to not edit this article with neutrality. My real concern is just allowing the article to get trashed out of laziness. Example: someone randomly took the well referenced intro of the soviet section away because they thought it was bias and then an editor with experience simply removed the heading and let it bleed into the Jackie Robinson section which made no sense.-Super Amanda Catherine Huebscher (talk) 1:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that a lot of time and effort has been spent on this article, but to me it reads in parts like a combination of apology and hagiography. The opinions of his supporters should certainly be cited, but phrases like "Right-wing authors attempt... to incorrectly portray him as a Stalinist" rather look like POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.125 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well they do and as I named and cited every other style of theorist that brings this up I think it's balanced. The right wing has always hated Robeson so how is that a POV? Its a governing factor in his history. There is nothing apologist about the article as well but as Robeson's history is filed with bias and distortions, you have to at least mention that exists before you cite the examples of what some believe is true and what some believe is false or bias.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this article to get some info on Paul Robeson. I was ASTONISHED on the BIAS and laudatory NON-ENCYCLOPEDIC language, esp. used by Catherine.

Catherine, with all due respect, you need an editor, not to be an editor! You are much, much too biased to be let loose on this subject.

Is there a way to slap a non-pov label on sections of this thing? Simplemines (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What bi*chy comment. With all due respect to the predictably named simplemines, you obviously no nothing about the subject so until you do and actually show YOUR own work with some cites, your nasty comment is a pile rubbish. If you knew the subject you would see how many NON-flattering and unbiased things have been included by my edits, especially about his association with the USSR, but YOU DON"T KNOW ROBESON. When I found this article had few cites and barely even an intro.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking

I have cleaned up the horrendous linking of this page again, and will revert in the future if people keep adding in unnecessary links. Here are some things to keep in mind:

• don't link the same thing repeatedly - see WP:OVERLINK
• don't link plain English words -- see WP:OVERLINK
• don't link dates -- see WP:MOSNUM
• spell out acronyms the first time they are used, and don't link acronyms -- see WP:MOS

Thank you. Ground Zero | t 02:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank YOU. I know what it's like to clean up horrendous and improperly cited facts and bold faced lies about a subject's life so I can at least empathize somewhat.Catherine Huebscher | t 08:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable Whitewash

The biographical summary at the beginning is an unbelievable whitewash of Robeson's support for the Russian Stalinist government, rendered in highly non-neutral language. Every move, questionable or not, he made is rendered as some kind of heroic blow against the forces of "white world supremacy." There's a reason why mainstream black civil rights groups distanced themselves from Robeson and his Stalinism. It's also absurd the way the article suggests Robeson was not targeted by the CIA and MI5 for this, but actually because he supported integration of Major League Baseball and anti-lynching legislation! Algabal (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, its not. Not at all. Stalin and the USSR is actually a very small portion of Robeson's life you just are buying the generic, rote line. Also there is PLENTY of unflattering and "Robeson is responsible for everything Stalin ever did" rhetoric that you seek in the separate article ABOUT HIS BELIEFS IN SOCIALISM. The intro mentions the Stalin peace prize too. Btw, few black groups are now distanced from Robeson. you need to read more books-the baseball and anti-lynching legislation, anti-colonialism and pro-Africa is WELL DOCUMENTED in CIA and FBI files! Crack open a book or ten as I have. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.124.141 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to be so combative. I'm a very big Robeson fan, too—although I've only read three or four books about him, not ten—and the article seems overly protective of its subject to me. Robeson had many admirable qualities, but he had a huge blind spot when it came to Stalin and repression in the Soviet Union. I think it's inappropriate to defend Robeson against every criticism made against him. Let the facts speak for themselves. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Catherine Hubescher here, I obviously wrote the above unsigned comment, sorry for the brevity. I'm live from London, I can't sign in as I'm on an insecure server. Frankly the facts DO speak for themselves. After all the reading i've done, my committee has met PR jr, I've met with Tony Benn on this subject etc etc, saying that Robeson 'had a blind spot' is simply a matter of personal opinion and not relevant to the man's actual actions, words or perceived lack thereof. I agree this is an open process but so many have simply bought the David Horowitz/FOX news anti-Robeson line. I would expect those who dislike his affiliations with the USSR to have at least done more research.

Its obvious that ROBESON felt there was enough potentiality in the possibility of socialism as the destiny of mankind and later in its possible resurgence, to not become a negative influence. That's not a 'blind spot' that is a person standing by their beliefs just as many still live in and support the USA despite how much mass murder its been connected to domestically and abroad. One may not like it but that was who he was and its made very clear in the article and sub-articles. Remember there were many other artists who supported the USSR/Stalin in a similar way but they were white and therefore slip through the cracks of vilification. There is still a vast racist component central to Robeson's persecution in all forms of the media, US govt and intelligence community.

FBI and CIA files show Hoover and cronies were VERY concerned about his anti-colonialist work in Africa and Asia-it was also CLEARLY sighted by the State Department in his passport denial. Domestic civil rights and Union advocacy was a cause for their concern as much if not more so than his friendship with the USSR. Once again, in relation to Robeson's life, the USSR has been blown way out of proportion by centrist and right wing scholars for obvious reasons. If one wants to say that his good sense was eventually assailed on certain issues, as Duberman maintains, it is still a POV. I can only explain to fans of Robeson that, with all it's defects, he saw no other country willing to work for change for oppressed peoples apart from Communist countries. Like many he was shocked, according to Harry Francis, when the 20th party congress was revealed but he was by no means 'blind.' 'Blindness' is viewing his actions from a 21st century hindsight perspective with all we know now and without firstly looking at the foul actions of the governments we all live and pay taxes in. [[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 15:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the Communism that caused the trouble with the State dept. and so on. There was a Cold War on, remember? Union leaders and civil rights activists as such had little trouble moving about. And you must know of the troubles all the white supporters of the Party had; they have been complaining about it for years.

That Roebeson thought that 'change for oppressed peoples' meant putting them under Communist rule is the whole basis of the charge against him. Equating opposition to that solution with lack of desire to address the problem is an old trick.

This whole response should be put in the article as an example of the huge blind spot that many people (like Roebeson) had and have towards Lenin and his friends, while accusing liberal Western countries of 'mass murder'. If you wish, tell us: who is the bigger murderer, Hitler or Stalin? The Communist or the National Socialist? Whatever your answer, we will learn something about you. 84.69.173.228 (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

outside looking in.

seems very well done. take a sec to pat yourselves on the back. and thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.90.64.210 (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It is true. Malik Shabazz has been a huge help as have all the people kind enough to correct grammar. I think its one of the bet resources on Robeson available and hope to put in more time improving and finding the article and related links.Even if I don't see eye to eye always with who has been co-editing, they have been invaluable in protecting and refining the article. [[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not have it. It is filled with laudatory language. Being sensitive to the fact that there has been non-neutral edits in the past to make him out to be a Stalinist, I will try my best to neutralize it properly. Killua (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just finished edits, tried my best. It was fun reading the article and reading about this guy, whom I hadn't known before this. Great article! Killua (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No we wouldn't want people to think he was a Stalinist, just because he accepted a Stalin peace prize, wrote articles villifying Trotskyites, and composed a eulogy on Stalin's death called 'To You, Beloved Comrade!'(New World Review April, 1953. Reprinted in 'Paul Robeson Speaks' ed. Philip Foner) Just to read 'Beloved Comrade' should settle the question for anyone.84.69.173.228 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks but sadly it show that you know virtually nothing about him as you yourself maintain. And while your enthusiasm is appreciated, with a subject this world famous and then subsequently erased from mainstream history its important to really have read up on him extensively.

eg: "Some states failing to stand up for people of color.." Is that to say states without Jim Crow were all standing up for blacks? Well they were not. I think its clear that the majority of white America was allowing lynching, segregation and poll tax to continue. One could say the "US government" instead of white America but then who elected them?

I think you need to do some very heavy reading about who Paul Robeson actually was before you go deeming any reference to his persecution the "white press" (you left Black in btw) or any reference to white supremacy as POV. You also have no cites. Virtually, Robeson's entire life as an activist was about challenging the world wide white supremacist/pro-colonist/fascist power structure. From the baseball field to African independence to anti-Lynching etc that is all anti-white supremacy activism not mainstream. Edits undone.[[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I need to do much research to tell what is POV and what is not. 'Standing up for' is odd language for an encyclopedia. I think 'protecting' would be better language. The black press self-identifies as such, while the mainstream press did not identify as being 'white'. Therefore I thought that was POV. Generally do not need cites when POV language is obvious. Talking about 'white America' failing to stand up for something is POV because it blames white people for certain things--when of course there were tons of white people advocating civil rights and equality, and certain states did 'stand up' for the rights of minorities. Generalizing like that is racist and POV. Just because Paul Robeson was a famous civil rights activist does not mean this article has to adopt the language of civil rights activism.

My edits had concerned not at all any amount of knowledge I have of Paul Robeson. It is not civil to say that I clearly know nothing and therefore should not edit.Killua (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Catherine: Your "I know everything about Robeson and you know nothing" routine is wearing thin. Please read WP:OWN. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Killua, which entire states stood up? can you tell us when and how? Who were these tons of people? Do you have cites? You should still do research and you should still have cites, seeing as ENCYCLOPEDIC seems to be your operative phrase. Clearly, you have no idea what or whom you are writing about and yes, that does not preclude you from editing in any capacity but don't you want to have at least some knowledge of the subject you're editing?

"The black press self-identifies as such, while the mainstream press did not identify as being 'white'. '

Not true in regards to Robeson, please read Martin Duberman's Paul Robeson. There were entire all white staffs on a few of the paper's during Robeson's era that were "the white man's daily" it was either stated clearly or subtly but it was obvious where bias and racial attitudes fell. Robeson was kept off of US television by the all white management of NBC as well, that is white on black racism. That's not POV, that is history. A lot white American history in juxtaposition with Robeson, IS very, very ugly, that is not racist to cite; unfathomable as it may be to read for some, it is history. Just like Farrakhan is an anti-Semite who has lauded Hitler, it can't be taken "out of context."

'Generalizing like that is racist and POV. Just because Paul Robeson was a famous civil rights activist does not mean this article has to adopt the language of civil rights activism"

There is zero language that is civil rights activist. You simply do not know the history nor the subject matter, as YOU yourself have maintained. I just can't see how that qualifies you to understand nuance and subtly in a person's biography, Robeson is a vastly complex individual much more so than most as his life wa filled with so many different events and eras. He spans post slavery via his father to the late 1970's. I'm white btw so please don't try to stereotype me as being "Afrocentric" ala "reverse racism" which is what I feel you are implying. We don't agree and that's ok, I can compromise on this and that is all that matters.

Mailik, I've read it, thanks, that is not my attitude, I actually think you speak for yourself when you say that and I think the way you've approached me has worn thin as well. We don't agree and that's ok, I can compromise on this and that is all that matters.[[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 6:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious you feel great attachment to this article, and I agree with Malik's sentiments. You also have a bad habit of painting with very big brush strokes, and to talk about me not understanding nuance and subtlety because I struck out terms such as "white America" is ironic to say the least. This article would be helped by including specific instances of racism on the parts of specific white persons in the media establishment and not by huge generalizations. For instance, I would like to read about any mainstream newspapers that did self-identify as being the 'white man's' newspaper. Still, we can mostly agree on the current edit, although I am going to make a minor edit. Also, just as a note, I never maintained I know nothing concerning the civil rights movement in the mid-20th century. Just hadn't heard about Robeson. Killua (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Killua, I'm attached to HISTORY being told honestly without protecting white supremacy. I've read your articles and I would say the same about you and we do not share anything in common! I think statements like "some States" and "tons of white people working for Civil rights" are examples of wishful and imagined history. So again, where are those states who 'stood up'? As for papers, start with the New York Times, in 1890, who's all white staff and editor championed the lynching of 11 Italian Americans over their alleged murder of David Hennessy (this was when Italians were not considered "white" in the US) and then work your way through most of the white owned papers during the next 60 or so odd years. Apologies for lynchings, rabid and overt racism towards blacks, native Americans and any immigrants who had not yet assimilated and been able to become "white" (eg:Irish) is the rule not the thinly veiled exception or some imagined POV. White supremacy and right wing domination of resources and the working classes is expressed and defended in editorial after editorial, article after article. Robeson was a HUGE target, even before he expressed sympathies for socialism. Rankin, Bilbo, Dies etc those were proud KKK, N word shouting ELECTED members of congress, it's not a POV to call them white supremacists, they'd have been the first to admit it proudly. You still are speaking, self admittedly, about a person's life that you have no back ground in and I don't see how that is pro-wikipedia. You said you have knowledge of the civil rights movement; Paul Robeson is one of the main reasons there was a civil rights movement in the first place, which is why he was known as the "great forerunner", look up WEB dubois as well if you'd like. To not know those two very well is to have missed most of the crucial origins of the civil rights and stateside anti-colonialists movements, inter-war and Post WW11. And in regards to Robeson, to know little about the historically crucial black actors and singers of stage and screen who first shattered racist stereotypes propagated like law by the white media and the eugenics movement. [[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 9:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm complete fine with the inclusion of that quote from Duberman. But do you not understand why it would be POV to include its content and language without the quotation marks? In a biography you expect to see such language. In an encyclopedia, not without quotes. Killua (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Killua: I understand many things.[[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 12:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is he pronounced "robe" like "probe" or "robe" like "toby"? 78.53.43.12 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Great question. Many in the African-American Community traditionally refer to Robeson as Robe-ah-son, most likely because Robersonville, North Carolina was where the Robeson slave name originated and it calls back to that era. It is also a term of collective endearment, like Skip instead of Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Dr. King instead of Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm in place of Malcolm X. Robe-son (silent e) is how his name is commonly pronounced and in my experience the most common usage. I've never heard of Roby-son, though his college nickname was "Roby" or "Robeson of Rutgers." [[::User:Catherine Huebscher|Catherine Huebscher]] (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GAN

I guess this page should be at least a GA. Sugesting contributors to go for WP:GAN.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)