Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Recent edit-comments

Yesterday I changed: "was unable found the financial backing" to: "was unable to get the money" [20:29, 17 November 2010]. This [but C. H. wrote this about something else, see below; radh] drew the incredibly silly response: "Radh:please do not insert povs to refenced material. You need to provide references alongside your "claims" ". [04:37, 18 November 2010]. Could user:Catherine Huebscher, who did this masterly interpretation please stop with this. He/she might concentrate on his/her own webside or even improved his/her article on the Council on African Affairs?--Radh (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You altered more than just that though. You claimed something like "no way was Oliver Law elected as leader" he was killed by his own troops was another comment somewhere...it reads picking not improving the section. The Spanish Civil war is where Paul Robeson became a political artist and where he saw blacks and whites working together for the causes he believed in for the very first time and he tried for years afterwords to get the Oliver Law bio film made. I asked you politely to cite a reference proving your belief/pov before you altered the cited non pov material. Thanks--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

"In 1937, Lincoln Brigaders chose Oliver Law as their commander,[77] making him one of the first Black men to lead an integrated American Army."

Where does it say "first Black man to lead an integrated military unit in the United States Army."

It was an Army of American citizens who are welcome to match in veteran's day parades here. It is your pov that sees it that as being written incorrect way and that it was not a regular army whatever that means when it is perfectly acceptable.Thanks--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

User C.H. is right, I also changed another sentence - but did not think it was this she was objecting to in her edit commentary
FROM: The Robesons heard about Captain Oliver Law, an African American from Texas and one of the few Lincolns with military experience. In 1937, Lincoln Brigaders chose Oliver Law as their commander, thus making him the first Black man to lead an integrated American Army.
TO: ...heard about Captain Oliver Law, an African American activist from Chicago, born in Texas, who had served from 1919 to 1925, a private with the 24th infantry and one of the few Lincolns with military experience. In July 1937 law was made commander of the Lincoln Brigade
It is the last sentence user: C. H. objects to. But a blog is not an acceptable Wikipedia source.
But I did not give the folowing source, when working on the Oliver Law-article: a book, more pro- than against-Oliver Law, Peter N. Carroll: The Odyssey of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade: Americans in the Spanish Civil War, pp. 136f., and others.
Law was given his post by his superiors, of course, among them the three Americans: Steve Nelson (activist) [who knew Law in Chicago --Radh (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)], Allen Johnson ("the highest ranking U.S. Army officer to serve in the International Brigades and a stalwart party man", Peter N. Carroll) and leading Communist and Comintern cadre Harry Haywood, like Law based in Chicago. Colonel Copic had promoted Law earlier.
Law was shot four days later, after he had led his men into two devastating ambushes.
He may not have been killed by his own men, but by the enemy. But the rumors that it indeed were his own men is old. True or not, it surely shows some resentment against Law and his fast rise in the Brigades (Peter N. Carroll, who believes Law was shot by the enemy, gives some idea of this resentment).
@film. User: C. H. changed that, erased a reference and text, which even reflects her own ideas about Robeson and his attempt to make a film about Oliver Law, (perhaps she thought I had introduced the stuff?); see the diff-link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Robeson&curid=23229&diff=397443012&oldid=397370004 .
And the idea that soldiers of fortune are a regular US-Army seems to be silly, to me as an outsider at least. --Radh (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The issue of how Law was killed is one that cannot be covered by this article. It is also irrelevant to Robeson, who was told the "hero" version and wanted to make this into a film.
All this should be put into Oliver Law, which right now is a seriously defective article.
Furr is problematic as a source - I am not saying that he can't be used ever but certainly not as the sole source on the matter. Str1977 (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
It should be said in favour of C. H., that her main objection seems to have been that Law was elected by his soldiers, and not installed from above. He/she thinks a remark on a blog to this effect is enough proof. I also use blogs sometimes. If serious questions have to be solved, no blog information can be a match for a book or essay by a serious scholar, like Peter N. Carroll, who worked/s at the archives of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Furr's reconstruction essay is basically o.k. for WP, I guess, if a bit Stalinist and unreadable, but Furr's statements elsewhere show that he is really crazy. --Radh (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm quoting Duberman and others in the section and removing the Furr quote. There is nothing wrong with how it reads at all.Thanks--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC).

You do not have to read my nonsense, you know, but what has your answer/statement got to do with the question raised above: was Law elected by his men or chosen by a few communists higher up? I again apologize for not providing the source before.--Radh (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Paris speech quote

Thanks, Catherine, for providing a quote from the actual Paris speech. However, I feel we could benefit if you quoted the entire speech her on talk, as there are still some things unclear.

Your version makes the AP report a pastiche of earlier statements with the "Negro bit" being entirely fabricated. While the practice of such pastiches are a nuissance even now, Robeson himself stated, before HUAC:

Mr. ROBESON: They asked me to say in their name that they did not want war. That is what I said. 
No part of my speech made in Paris says fifteen million American Negroes would do anything.
I said it was my feeling that the American people would struggle for peace, and that has since been 
underscored by the President of these United States. Now, in passing, I said—
...
Listen to me. I said it was unthinkable to me that any people would take up arms, in the name 
of an Eastland, to go against anybody. Gentlemen, I still say that. This United States 
Government should go down to Mississippi and protect my people. That is what should happen.

THE CHAIRMAN: Did you say what was attributed to you?

Mr. ROBESON: I did not say it in that context.

Mr. ARENS: I lay before you a document containing an article, “I Am Looking for Full Freedom,” 
by Paul Robeson, in a publication called the Worker, dated July 3, 1949.

At the Paris Conference I said it was unthinkable that the Negro people of America or elsewhere 
in the world could be drawn into war with the Soviet Union.

Mr. ROBESON: Is that saying the Negro people would do anything? I said it is unthinkable. 
I did not say that there [in Paris]: I said that in the Worker.
...
Mr. ROBESON: I did not say that in Paris, I said that in America.

From what I gather, Robeson insists that he did not make such comments in Paris but admits that he made them at another venue. True, the quoted article was over two months after the Paris speech and thus could not have been used by AP but it at least suggests that the "completely fabricated" claim is not the entire truth. Str1977 (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Complete fabrication?" Where is that written in the article? The documentation of what occurred is in that section and cited. I'm sure one could split hairs all day guessing what Robeson "meant" said and when he said it but this is about the Paris Peace Congress.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Robeson Jr. says that AP made up the negro sentence while pasting together sentences from earlier Robeson speeches. That the report does not equal what he said I agree. That agencies like AP or other media do that kind of thing (even sending reports before when somebody has just begung to speak) is a sad reality - even now. (Which, come to think of it, makes it more a media than a government problem at this instance.)

My question above was for the entire Robeson speech at Paris - what is quoted obviously seems to be a passage only. Str1977 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul

As promised, I have been working on an overhaul of the entire article which I now have (more or less) finished and have posted now. Of course, it isn't perfect but IMHO a huge improvement. It doesn't take any sides (as the former version/s) did, neither constantly lauding nor condemning Robeson, simply recounting what happened, how Robeson saw certain things and how others saw certain things.

It basically follows a chronological structure: Family - Education - Entertainment career (divided into Early and England years). His political formation and early activism is put in another section topically. I am a bit disatisfied with the WWII section as some of the things he did (or some things done to him, e.g. FBI surveillance) at the time had to be mentioned in the following activism section for topical reasons. However, I couldn't do without a WWII section which covered his war-time successes, the Ballad for Americans and his positioning regading the war. The following activism section follows his entire activism after the war, including the backlash against (HUAC, isolation, passport), the important Paris speech issue, and, for chronological reasons, also the Feffer meeting (which in a way was activism or lack thereof as well) - due to the repercussions of the Paris speech I had to put Feffer before that event. Next follows a section on his renewed travelling, including a section on what Robinson recalled, a section on his health (which strictly separates facts from speculation and theories). It concludes with sections on his retirement years, his death and funeral and posthumous recognitions. A proper legacy section is still missing.

I have done my best to portray the subject evenhandedly and also concisely. Many of the things missing are either repetitions of things already stated (which I have tried to avoid as much as possible), rhetorical passages or issues that were just not on topic here (e.g. the death of Oliver Law). I have also included issues that were not present in the former version, such as Robeson's religious views or presented some issues more clearly, e.g. the development of his politics or how he came to transform into a political artist in the context of the Spanish civil war. I have also have made greater use of the pictures avaiable on WP and made the references uniform (some though still lack page numbers). Though I started on this endeavaour a while ago, I repeatedly went back to this and related pages and incorporated new material introduced.

Of course, everyone is welcome to issue criticism but please be specific. And if some change or edit seems unclear, please ask me. Given the size of the undertaking, I cannot possibly explain everything right now. Str1977 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the formatting does not work at all and looks too jumbled and messy. I think article looks poor now as much as I can see what you attempted to do and why you felt it was improvement. The over haul is simple a bias job at best with no references nor knowledge of the subject very clearly demonstrated. That is my opinion not an insult. Your entire edits are clearly slanted to soften the blow of how bad white supremacy treated him and to make the right wing look as if they had no other recourse. Sort of the reverse of what you accused me of doing with the USSR sub article. Words like touchstone don't work either, not does "Robeson and the Jews" it makes all the persecution and gross violation of civil liberties all fancy dancy and sweet and it vastly down plays his love and friendship with Jews respectively. You cannot see why or how he was erased in your work, which, with all politeness I feel may be your point. But this is why this is an open process and things can be changed. This is a common part of Robeson, where the US persecution via the FBI and CIA are softened with no real data and parts of his life whitewashed. It has been a problem all along.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine,
what do mean by the formatting looking jumbled? I am not at all completely happy with everything but all the problems were worse before. I am certainly open to specific suggestions.
Sorry, I cannot take your accusation of a "bias job" seriously. If my edits appear as softening a blow, it is because in the former version that blow was seriously overdone, with no differing thoughts entertained. My version does not make it look like "no other recourse" for anybody - it simply explains the motives even of Robeson's opponents. I can't see how the Peetskill rioters are portrayed favourably, nor is the pass port ban or the isolation in some way justified. As for your reference to "white supremacy" - that belief certainly played a part but it is not the be all, end all of the matter. And certainly, the allegation that Hoover, Bilbo and Dies (with the latter accused of racism without any sourcing - don't know if he was myself!) colluded to intentionally blacken the civil rights movement is a view, not a fact. But this, the view is presented.
How does "touchstone" not work? I took that word directly from one of the articles I used as source. What's wrong with "Robeson and Soviet Jews"? I am open to better alternatives but "Robeson and Feffer" just doesn't cut it, as a) Feffer is pretty much an unknown to readers, and b) it is not simply about Feffer.
How does my version make "all the persecution and gross violation of civil liberties all fancy dancy and sweet" - it doesn't.
It also does not downplay his friendship with Jews, in fact it twice gives much space to him singing Jewish songs.
Why he was "erased"? Well, glossing over the hyperbolic language, the article explains it in great detail. Anti-communism, heightened by the Cold War, mixed together with racism led to enmity of Robeson etc. Nothing is whitewashed in my version.
But please, if you want to, point out specific problems, e.g. "sentence X is wrong" or "sentence Y is missing this and that" rather than blanket revert. This is the proper and also polite way of going about. Str1977 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
PS. If above you wanted to say that the "isolation" section is a bit thin right now, I agree. But that's not because of any wish to downplay the gravity of the matter but because the previous version (which I used as a basis) and the avaiable sources simply spoke of nothing more, albeit in hyperbole. If we can find more in sources, I would be delighted to include it. But we also must be careful about language, not using hyperbole like "non-person" or using inappropriate terms like "banned". If he was banned, we must sayy by whom he was banned, to avoid the misperception that he was legally banned. His isolation was not a conspiracy but independent agents acting by themselves, even if they were influenced by hysteria. Str1977 (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Legacy?

What the article is missing is a proper legacy section, which would concisely list and quote overall judgements about the man.

This would of course include laudatory voices but also critical ones like James Baldwin: "It is personally painful to me to realize that so gifted a man as Robeson should have been tricked by his own bitterness and by a total inability to understand the nature of political power in general, or Communist aims in particular, into missing the point of his own critique..." (quoted in Finger).

Str1977 (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Str1977: Is this really a place Robeson's life via James Baldwin's views? there is a wiki quotes for this and it would be better there. The posthumous honors is wonderful and does a great job of showing what he left aka LEGACY not how those still resent his views. you say Robeson love of Oliver Law should be deleted but a james Baldwin quote, totally unconnected to Robeson's life as a friend and which was later taken back should be?

"which would concisely list and quote overall judgments about the man" That sort of says it all.

I think your work on this article is so clandestinely defamatory and bias towards the right wing that it is frankly a bit disconcerting. I do not mean this be insulting, it is an observation respectfully noted. I have had to work to take bias out in a few places so this is not an accusation just an observation. Regardless what you attempt to put in and/or remove, others will be able to sift through your bias very easily and repair any damage or unsourced factoids of which your "over haul" had far too many to count. The right wing has published too many falsehoods about Robeson too long and this article cannot become one extended "urban myth" or shaming just as it can't become a Communist party lefty whitewash. happy editing!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine,
you obviously either don't get what I meant or what WP is about or both. Currently, the article has a bit of legacy-like comments, mainly in the funeral section with all the orbituary quotes. There they must be very short as the subject is Robeson's funeral, not so much what others thought of him. And clearly, such orbituary quote will only be positive as de mortuis nil nisi bonum. Both brevity and occasion limit the scope.
A legacy section (which you cannot oppose in principle, as there has always been a header for "legacy", even if other content followed) would collect a broad range of views, including the one you approve of, Robeson the great Renaiisance man who fought evil and was persecuted for it. The difference is, it will be presented as what it is, a view among many. And so is Baldwin's.
Also, please stop your pointless talk about "urban myth" - what you label as such is a controversial issue, in which many views exist. Neither side can claim to have certain proof. A "Communist party whitewash" the issue has been for too long. Str1977 (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Soviet and Jews

Wow! that was such a bias distortion and full of povs and weasel words, I do not know where to be begin. Horowitz was deleted off the article once for a reason by the admins and I suggest you go through the archives of this page and read why. Horowitz is across the board a far right wing character who is on records as lying about key events in Robeson's life. His shallow veracity as a historian and such heavy right wing conservative bias is woven into what you are writing. Str1977: please note this is not a place for a political or historical bias we are trying to make this as neutral as possible. Those who have made it their mission in their work to defame Robeson should only go in with a heavy disclaimer or not at all. You can find other sources besides Horwoistz and Marshall. Marshall was NOT his friend by the way. Conservapaedio (sp?) is not a valid source and this article should not follow Conservapaedio which are your references , the few you included, stem from. They were enemies as Marshall worked for the state department against Robeson alonsgside J Edgar Hoover with Wilkins. Read the FBI files instead of Conservapaedio please.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The conservapedia article sadly was better in places than this one. The idea that Marshall was not sometimes a friend of Robeson's is not shared by Marshall. D. Horowitz is not far right the way Horst Mahler or David Duke are, He is perhaps a populist Republican, which strangely enough is not a crime. --Radh (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Catherine,
first of all, simply reverting weeks of work is not the proper way to go.
Then, where specifically do you see "bias distortion" and "weasel words"? As for full of povs, you are uninentionally correct - the new version is full of various points-of-view, not just one. That's what NPOV is all about.
Horowitz appears in footnote, only because he is (like him or not) quite a notable author. Whether he is right wing is as irrelevant as whether Robeson Jr. or Duberman are left-wing. And he is not "on record as lying", despite the deficencies in his books. "Lying is something else". But my version hardly rests on Horowitz appearing in that footnote. We can just as well remove him. His views are not "woven" into the article at all.
"please note this is not a place for a political or historical bias we are trying to make this as neutral as possible."
I agree and that's what all my changes were about. Where does the new version "defame" Robeson.
I used very many sourcs apart from Horowitz or Marshall - actually, those sources that were already there. I did not use Conservopaedia as a source at all and only had a quick look at it to understand the discussion between you and Radh about Marshall.
Marshall's orbituary however is a RS in WP terms and hence I used him, without endorsing his views. (And it is Marshall who called Robeson his friend. I am not in the position to judge about that but anyway, the thing you rail about is not in the article.) You talk about "defaming" Robeson but if you compare our versions on the Feffer event, yours offer only one narrative: Robeson knew about anti-Jewish purges, did nothing (expect for singing a song and confirming the official lies about Mikhoels and Feffer), then lied to the U.S. public and (more seriously) his friends (if you mentioned them at all). My version also presents that narrative as possible but also the one based on Marshall, that Feffer said nothing to Robeson, who hence spoke truthfully during the concert, to the U.S. public and his friends. Nowhere do I or the article take sides on this issue (actually, I worked hard to avoid implying such a decision in later passages) but please ask yourself which narrative is more damning to Robeson?
And yes, I have looked into the linked FBI files. But I don't divide mankind into friends and enemies of Robeson. Even if I did, such a division could not be a basis for ignoring certain sources.
To reiterate: the article does not take sides on various controversial issues as the previous version did.
If you can find any specific passage you think problematic, please point it out and say what is wrong. But please don't make such generalised accusations. Str1977 (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
PS. As for your claim that there is "unsourced material" - the unsourced bits (which are not born out of a single POV but come down on various sides of the debate) were unsourced before and I merely tagged them. They should be sourced. Str1977 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The recent edits

Thanks to the recent edits it has become even clearer, that Robeson was/acted like a Stalinist (walked like a duck, quacked like a duck). So the AP depeche re:Paris World Peace Congress was not that completely wrong at al: "We", surely no pluralis majestatis, "shall not make war upon the Soviet Union" (= THE Negro will not fight if ordered by his government).

It should be obvious, that (in political matters) Robeson simply was an Uncle Tom for Stalinism (e.g.: "imperialist Germany" for the Westallied German zones) - but he was not the only one, as the many "scholars" falling for the Corean War biological weapons-hoax show.
@most hunted African American in US-history: slavery is a part of U.S. history. @FBI. The book The Boss (J. Edgar Hoover) by mildly leftists Athan G. Theoharis and John Stuart Cox (561 pages) does mention M. L. King, Robeson not at all.--Radh (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"It should be obvious, that (in political matters) Robeson simply was an Uncle Tom for Stalinism (e.g.: "imperialist Germany" for the Westallied German zones)"

Radah, you truly are, in my opinion a very racist and mean person with very poor communication skills. Uncle Tom is a slur in the context you've used it. That language is not only 100% false but should not be allowed on wikipedia. It's as if you living to see Robeson slandered instead of simply the history that is there, properly sourced, not made up by David Horotwitz.

@FBI. The book The Boss (J. Edgar Hoover) by mildly leftists Athan G. Theoharis and John Stuart Cox (561 pages) does mention M. L. King, Robeson not at all.--"

Robeson has been virtually erased from history. FBI FILES SHOW HE HAD THE LARGEST INTERNAL INDEX OF ANY ENTERTAINER. Hoover hated him, that's not a matter of debate.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He is not in this book, a critical biography of Hoover, because Robeson was simply not all that important.--Radh (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC) IMPORTANT.--Radh (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A "critical bio?" I do not believe that. Then why was he condemned by US congress, the NAACP, and why was he investigated by the CIA, Mi6 and why does he have a massive FBI file to the point of 105 files? Robeson was the most globally well known black man of the first part of the 20th century. Who else even comes close in media recognition? Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Catherine, while I would not want to include the assertion "Robeson was a Stalinist" into the article, Radh has a right to his opinion just as you have the right to say a great many things about Hoover, Dies, Horowitz etc. (And AFAIK, "Uncle Tom" is not a racist epithet like the N-word - which Radh shouldn't have used - but a polemic description actually coined by opponents of U.S. racism. Robeson clearly was no "Uncle Tom" regarding white supremacist but he was less than perfect regarding what he said and did on the Soviets. IMO, the term is a valid to be used in polemics, though of course not in an WP article (unless its use has to be reported as notable). But the former version of the article was full of stuff like that, only directed at others, not Robeson.
Indeed, it is telling that Robeson called the Federal Republic of Germany, a free and democratic state, "Imperialist" and, even worse, "Nazi Germany". If I became easily offended, I would scream racism at that.
Regarding the importance of Hoover. He, as FBI boss, obviously had an impact on PR's life but how far he was personally involved or interested is another matter. But why the dispute, the current version, Catherine, says exactly the same things about Hoover's actions with one exception: Duberman's claim that Hoover, Dies and the other politician intentionally used "PR the Commie-friend" to blacken trade unionism and divide the civil rights movement is now reported as such, not stated as a matter of fact. As it should.
"Robeson has been virtually erased from history." - In as much as this is about facts, the article already covers that. And, since you mention it in the context, it was not Hoover who erased PR from anything. Like it or not, Robeson's actual (and perceived) actions made him very unpopular among very many people.
"FBI FILES SHOW HE HAD THE LARGEST INTERNAL INDEX OF ANY ENTERTAINER." - The article states that, doesn't it.
"Hoover hated him, that's not a matter of debate." - And the emotions of Hoover are not the subject of this article. Hoover hated quite a lot of people, didn't he? Str1977 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Tom is a slur. There is a link to ethnic slurs on the article. Even if it was not slur it is used in the wrong context. At least own what you defend instead of white washing slurs. You prove all my points wonderfully though about your seemingly intrinsic inability to come on to this subject without a far right bias. Many unpopular people are taught in school books by the way. Hateful, awful people in history who were never nearly as famous. The fact that PR is not even held up in mainstream history/school books as an example of "those bad Communists and how some Blacks wen-t '-b-a-d'" shows how transparent conservative claims of morality and history are. The BBC just ran a show last Tuesday that showed the Peekskill riots, had Pete Seeger talking about being a CP member, showed HUAC and more Peekskill and Robeson was not mentioned ONCE. That is like mentioning Altamont and not mentioning the The Rolling Stones. Erased. And Hoover was a large contributing factor via his abject threatening and defamation of nearly all of PR's contacts. You should buy a few books on Robeson not just go online.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

compromise on the edits

After taking about a week of to review what can only be called an very biased right wing variation of the Paul Robeson page, I have found it to be filled bad false writing and poor sourced history-mostly from blogs. I think it it is important that admins have a look at what will hopefully not be an ongoing daily editing conflict. A one paragraph or so intro which dulls a very vast and varied life leads into very poorly worded and chronologically jumbled, poorly sourced edit by str1977. I think a compromise on my edit would be far superior. My work contains the most up to date information. I've reverted and resourced all my online sources while Str1977 pulls from mostly right wing online sites which defame Robeson. srt1977 admits that he does not know anything of Robeson's life which is very, very apparent. He writes that what he has found on Conservapaedio (an article which is so full of lies and slander it is fiction (eg: calling all of Robeson's major biographers, including martin Duberman, "Stalinists") is a better edit. His cohort radah uses the N word and "Uncle Tom" and admits he's a racist so if there is a way to ban him that would be a help. I cannot see how someone so openly hateful of blacks could be an asset here. Still, I am willing to work with this type of "philosophy" because PR should not be abandoned to bad history. Also Str1977, you claim you spent months on your work? Well I've spent years and you have to accept that just like myself, that your edits can be erased. You have created a page with no Robeson books sourced only online articles.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You can raise your objections individually and than we can talk about something concrete. But these general accusations are pointless and do nothing more than to justify your reverting the work of others and restore what clearly was a bad version.
No, it is not a right-wing version unless you mean by that a version that takes the opposition to PR seriously, that doesn't automatically and repitively praises everything PR did and doesn't automatically and repetively hurls denigrating epithets (some of which unsourced, e.g. the suppossed racism of Dies) at his oponnents. Neither, does the version cheer on Robeson's enemies. It simply reports in a neutral manner.
Though you call the new version "slander", PR actually gets off better in some instances. How is that slander?
I can imagine that you think everyone simply accepting your version to be superior.
What you call "A one paragraph or so intro" is exactly the way to go. The intro is not supposed to give a detailed account of everything the man ever did - that is (at most) the job of the text further down.
The article is no more "chronologically jumbled" than it was before, when the article jumped back and forth between various issues and periods. Also, I did not add anything for which I didn't also add the source.However, what I often did was add the "citation needed" tag. If something lacks the source, it already lacked it before I came along.
You say "Str1977 pulls from mostly right wing online sites which defame Robeson" - that's rubbish. I consult sources from all sides (and will consult more, waiting for books I have ordered right now) - your impression derives from that fact that the pro-Robeson sources were already there, while those criticial of Robeson were not. Which gives perfect evidence of the POVness of your version. In case you didn't know: WP adheres to a Neutral Point of View, not to a No-Right-Wing Point of View. The new version in no way endorses right-wing views.
You say: "He writes that what he has found on Conservapaedio (an article which is so full of lies and slander it is fiction (eg: calling all of Robeson's major biographers, including martin Duberman, "Stalinists") is a better edit." - How do you know that? I did not copy material from that other site and whether that site calls Duberman names is of absolutely no concern either to me or this article. Duberman is not the subject of this article anyway.
I would also like to advise you to stop hurling personal attacks at other editors. In any case, even if Radh, as he happens to be spelled, were a racist, it would not be grounds to blanket revert my work.
"Also Str1977, you claim you spent months on your work?" Were did I do that? I did not spend months, I spend a few weeks. How much time you spent is of no concern, since I did not simply revert everything you did but based myself on your version, your edits, even your recent additions and your sources. And then I added more! I know my edits can be changed - but you will not return to this article to the previous, POV pushing state. Not if I can hinder it.
"You have created a page with no Robeson books sourced only online articles."
Anyone who reads the article will immediately see how ridiculous your claim is. There are numerous books cited.
Since you again drag admins into the issue. Their job is mostly to monitor bad behaviour. I don't think I have done anything wrong here but your behaviour, your blanket reverting, your false claims about the article and, last but certainly not least, your personal attacks against others is most disruptive. It is up to you, whether you want to edit-war. Str1977 (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"You can raise your objections individually and than we can talk about something concrete. But these general accusations are pointless and do nothing more than to justify your reverting the work of others and restore what clearly was a bad version."

Oh really? Is this your article? That was not how you treated me as a fellow editor. I personally find your version very poorly written (far too much right wing bias) and very badly sourced via where you are backing up your information. Though the photos look good at least-sort of. And your friend's use of the N word and uncle Tom IS racist and frankly foul-that's not a personal attack that's basic human decency. I don't let what I consider to be animals who use words like N and Uncle Tom near me offline. In my opinion, your version is ALL pov, nothing more or less and I will happily redit it sentence by sentence to not sound like Conservapaedio if I have to. Happy editing.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not my article and I never stated anything of the sort. However, you are behaving as if it were yours. Your constant harping about "poorly sourced" is ridiculous as the sources I use are exactly the sources you used, with a few added. And speaking of sources, recently I found out that some of the sources given at the (may I say, supposed) real Paris speech did not say at all what was claimed. These sources were originally added by you. Is that good sourcing in your opinion?

Radh is no more my friend than any other WP editor and I will not take responsibility for what he says or writes. But then again, your acting as if you were the speech police is not very amusing. And actually, don't you think it hypoctrical that your bash him for one-and-a-half infractions and then call other human beings - regardless of their faults - "animals".

As for my version being all POV. It is a strange observation. You don't seem to have grasped the concept of NPOV and giving a balanced treatment involving ALL POVs. Str1977 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Horowitz and Robeson

This is relevant to the Robeson article and as to why Horowitz cannot be quoted unless with a disclaimer about what a liar and a friend of white supremacists he is. Tim Wise, self-described "anti-racist essayist, lecturer and activist", criticized Horowitz in the left-wing publication Znet for associating with alleged racists, pointing to his acceptance of funding from the Bradley Foundation, which supported the publication of The Bell Curve, as well for running a modified piece by white nationalist Jared Taylor on the media treatment of black-on-white murders. When Horowitz ran the piece, he admitted that the decision to do so would be controversial but denied that Taylor was a racist. Chip Berlet, writing for the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz's Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 "right-wing foundations and think tanks supporting efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.

Horowtiz is on par with David Duke and Ann Coulter, his bias against Robeson is very clear.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Horowitz is an author on the right of U.S. politics. That doesn't disqualify him from being quoted on subjects he talks about. "liar" is not a disclaimer fitting for an encyclopedia. And why do you object to Horowitz but then quote what to me appears to be pretty much his mirror image on the left. If Mr Wise may self-describe, why not Horowitz.
If I browse your argument, it boils down to "Horowitz is right-wing!" Well, yes, he is. So what?
In any case, this is ridiculous given that Horowitz appears in one sentence in a footnote, even with a disclaimer that he gives no sources.
Str1977 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mirror image? Wise is for peace and for people co-existing without hatred. He sees through white privilege and bias- the kind that paints Robeson in many of the ways that I believe you and Radh want to paint him, in Radh's case an "Uncle Tom". Horowitz's cohort Taylor is a racial separatist, Holocaust revisionist and openly hates black and minorities. DH slathers praise on him like a fawning lap dog-how is that a middle Republican?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the Robeson, not the Jared Taylor page. Question: in which of the following countries do "Afro Americans" people have the highest standard of living: Haiti; Cuba; Ghana; Nigeria; Kenia; Rhodesia; South-Africa; the U,K., the USA?--Radh (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, mirror image. What's good for Wise the left-wing activist is good for Horowitz the right-wing activist. Please, spare us your good-vs-bad thinking. This might be your or even my opinion but is no proper basis for inclusion and exclusion. Taylor is of no concern to Robeson, so please stop it. The same goes for your constant insinuations about my political views. Str1977 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have sourced that fictional "Forsaken" book which quotes Horowitz and all your sources for the "Jews and PR" go back to DH when traced. Left wing equivalent of David Horowitz is David Horowitz.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If D H mentions a Soviet book as a source, that then is a source that goes back to D.H. (= originates with him)? I am slightly glad to have had only a lousy Berlin education.--Radh (talk) 07:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, what are you talking about? The book "Forsaken" is not used in the article. DH solely appears in a footnote with another book. If DH quotes sources we also quote, I can only applaud DH for that as it is much better than to state things without sourcing. Str1977 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious views??

"Robeson also was a religious man. Though he rarely attended church services as an adult, he sometimes led his wife and young son in prayer. He rarely discussed his beliefs with his family, which did not share them - his mother-in-law was a militant atheist and his wife Eslana an agnostic - and never tried to convert them. "

Is this fiction or wikipedia? The section I reverted that was up there was 100% unsourced fiction that sounded not that far off from the 700 Club or a tabloid paper-simply made up. Nearly all of my material is sourced not fabricated.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, before you hurl insults and accusations at others and speak of more than you know, you should consult the source quoted, Paul Robeson Jr.'s bio of his father - two of the three pages are avaiable at Google Books.
If you have conflicting information, you may present it here and we can work it in. But yes, that is what Robeson Jr. wrote of his father. Str1977 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions and polite observations are not insults. That section read like the Daily Mirror/Miss Mary whitehouse-an attempt to "Christianize' him.

As for PR, Jr., he can't be quoted about Robeson, Sr. trying to save/speak out for Feffer in the USSR but his opinions of his father's "religious views" which are confirmed NOWHERE ELSE in any major bios can be? unbelievable fiction. Robeson was a secular humanist despite the odd prayer now and then according to all unbiased sources. You need to buy the books and read them ideally. Not just out of context snippets from online that fit a Christian bias. We have to keep this none pov. ThanksCatherine Huebscher (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Is this fiction" is not an polite observation, neither is the allegation about "Christianizing" as if that were something bad. It happens that Robeson himself stated this in the Titterman interview. If you have information about later changes, bring them on.

Since when couldn't Robeson Jr., repeatedly mentioned as a source not be quoted on his father? He surely can be - and actually is (are you reading another article?) - quoted about the Feffer meeting. It just happens that other accounts conflict with his and hence all relevant views are mentioned.

For your claims about "secular humanist" you must bring on sources, not simply state that he was. Str1977 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Robeson also was a religious man" is both fiction and an unsourced pov. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not. It is what his son says in the biography of his father. There's no way around this fact. Str1977 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "fact." "was also a religious man" is a point of view. My copy of the same book is not worded in such a Jesus freak way so perhaps you have a different edit. If it is "fact" then two thirds of your writing can be dumped because PR Jr. contradicts much what you write and claim. You glaringly appear to have not read even a modicum of both books just gone onlne to Google books CHERRY PICKING as you yourself maintain. With all dur respect that is a route to dismal research.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Robeson Jr. reports what he remembered his father did. Also, this includes an interview that is on the public record. You cannot simply deny it. "Being a religious man" is not a matter of opinion but one of fact.
Again you fail to grasp how WP works. We report what various sources are saying and if they are in disagreement (or even in conflict), we report the conflict (or the conflict). What Robeson Jr. says about the Feffer incident is contradicted by others - what he says about his father's religion, isn't (to my knowledge).
It is you who is cherry-picking in your revulsion at religion. Stop it! Str1977 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discography

With all the conflict over Robeson's politics still raging, would it be a fool's errand for me to start trying to put together a discography of his recordings for this site, either as part of this article or a separate article? -- Foetusized (talk) 05:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the "Discography" external link in the article is dead -- Foetusized (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that a "discography" was missing too and I applaud your intentions. If you add something about it, I will make sure as much as I can that it stays in. Str1977 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A discography is a wonderful idea though his catalog is very voluminous with over fifty compilations alone. A separate article or linking to an outside sources might be a great way to go.

" If you add something about it, I will make sure as much as I can that it stays in."

Oh how sweet. A nice Uriah Heep style comment Str1977. How humble of you but Foetusized is not pushing a non neutral agenda. The only edits that should be reverted are those that are pov and unsourced fiction. Right wing/Conservapaedio edits do not belong on wikipedia anymore than Leftist lines. you might enjoy working on Conservapaedio where they welcome a right wing/anti-Communist/Anti-black bias.--Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC

Catherine, even if it is none of your business how I interact with Foetusized, I will comment nonetheless: I assume that that user is "not pushing a non neutral agenda" and am more than happy about this. I am "not pushing a non neutral agenda" either, regardless of your allegations. However, you seem to be!
Leftist lines is exactly what you do. However, I do not write along Conservopaedia lines or with a right-wing agenda. I merely insist that all relevant POVs - right, left or centre - are reported in an accurate, neutral, balanced manner.
Good day! Str1977 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by Catherine Huebscher

Catherine,

though I applaud your desisting from blanket reverting, your edits are not quite up to standard:

  • Intro is incorrect and leaves out key parts of his life and skills. Very dull as well:
    • Contrary to your edit summary, nothing in the previous intro was "incorrect" - you didn't even bother to make any allegations about this.
    • Again you add sources to the intro when the proper way to go would be to source stuff in the text and to sum things up in the intro. To make matters worse, you include quotes in the footnotes that say nothing more than what the article already states.
    • You again add hagiographic language like "pioneering activism" and "greatest football player". It doesn't matter that your source uses the term - it is a statement of opinion and not a fact. And BTW, this is exactly what my proposed "legacy" section would have been all bout.
    • You also add information about the context of his actions, explaining the situation of blacks back then. But this is covered in other articles and not directly the topic of this article, certainly not to its intro.
    • Not all additions are bad - I like the addition about popularising spirituals - but all the stuff about the longest Othello run just doesn't belong into the intro. Unfortunately, the statements also smack of making him special by narrowing down the achievement: Was PR the first black actor to play Othello at all or just the first on Broadway?
    • Mr Belafonte and Mr Poitier are not relevant to this article, let alone the intro. I also believe the claim to be hyperbolic as both personality came way after Robeson had retired from screen acting. And actually, given all the information provided, Robeson tried and tried and tried to improve roles for blacks but didn't succeed, at least not for himself and according to his standards.
    • You also add the ultimate POV pusher: "Despite the persistent urban myth, to date, there is no official evidence of Paul Robeson having ever been a member of any Communist organization." It has been explained to you time and again, that his formal membership is not the be-all, end-all of the matter. He has never been identified as a party member by any official body but there are also statements that he was a party member. We cannot simply state as fact that he was not a party member. Well, actually you do not say that, only that there was no "official evidence". But this is supposed to imply that he wasn't a party member since there actually is no "urban myth" (a very loaded, non-neutral term likening the issue to quite different tales "about there being official evidence" - the "myth" (if it is one) is about him being a party member or, more generally, him being a Communist.
    • On a formal note, you seem to care not a bit whether footnotes containing a certain source (identical page numbers) already exist. You just add them again, gradually returining the article to the mess it once was.
  • too many poorly sourced falsehoods and incorrect claims:
    • Contrary to your edit summary, you do not remove "poorly sourced falsehoods" or "incorrect claims" (of which there are none) but add irrelevant stuff, e.g. details about William Robeson's life.
    • "Robeson was born in Princeton, New Jersey his father, William Drew Robeson I, a descendant of the Igbo people" is not a proper English sentence.
    • You also re-muddle the structure by new sub sections.
    • How Rutgers University honoured PR after his death is not relevant to his education there.
    • His being silenced, worded like a conspiracy theory and unjustifiably simply attributed to his "exercise of free speech", is not relevant to his Rutgers years at all. At best, his being struck from the sports records is but that is already covered in the "backlash/isolation" section where it is in context. Under your logic, his whole life would to be retold in every section and subsection.
  • previous edited whitewashed racism andw as far too right wing:
    • again, the edit summary has nothing to do with your actual edits, though these are not that bad this time. The info about his Columbia studies are an improvement but again you add little relevant details like Supreme Court justices (which I nevertheless keep) or irrelevancies like the law firm he worked for and add the "phonetics studies" that belong in a totally different context.
  • better wording and references:
    • this time, the edit summaries somewhat fits the edits. However, "understood" and "made her peace" are NOT better wordings, but rather try to smooth out the conflict that was brewing in the early years. You make it seem like Essie was all happy about it from the get-go.
    • You also remove (SOURCED!!!) information about how their marriage developed. Mixed with semi-true statements like "they seriously considered divorce" - fact is that they had already agreed to divorce and then changed their minds.
    • The current residence of Paul Robeson Jr. is of absolute NO concern to this article.
  • previous edit had poor structure and bad sources:
    • Bad structure? Putting any director or play into section headers is supposed to be good structure? You even turn a single song into a section of its own?
  • unsourced and fiction:
    • A most audacious claim, given that the source clearly appears before everyone's eyes. Whether it is fiction is not for us to decide as WP is about sources, not truth. I can only conclude that you use the word SOURCING in some way diffrerent from all other people I have encountered in five years on WP.
  • After that last edit, I see no more merit in going through the individual edits. I think I have made my case, that your edits are not an improvement, actually badly make the article worse.

Str1977 (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel you are in need of taking your own advice and you also seem to be very fortunate to have so much free time to be online with. Your edit is filled with bits of fiction and false history-some that is so obvious that it is unreal. This article will NOT become a Conservapaedio edit if I or other editors, three of whom who are now working on what will be their contributions to the article, have anything to input. Others are now involved so some of us who have families and can't be on wikipedia round the clock can make sure the article does not become a thinly veiled mouth piece for David Horowitz via your edits or a white supremacist white wash by people like radh who merrily use the n word and expressions like "Uncle Tom."Catherine Huebscher (talk) 5:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good for you to have a family and good friends - no need or time for raving-and-ranting, eh. But you still don't own shit here Wikipedia (in case you didn't know). But how can you not, being so much more intelligent, sussessful and right about everything. And funny, too: your bullying of Robeson, Jr., when he steps out of line (R. was religious, not atheist) was a scream. --Radh (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, Catherine, you talk about "fiction and false history" but even if one only looks at one issue, like that religious views, one can clearly see that it is all sourced. And that is only the most glaring example. This is no way to proceed. Str1977 (talk) 08:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not sourced enough for you to make a huge sweeping claim about religious views which are not confirmed or corroborated ANYWHERE else. Religious views guide an entire life and destiny. PR Jr. can't be the sole source for this. PR was not part of the Christian Left and nor was he a regular church goer. Don't attempt Christianize a person who was never Christian aka superstitious.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, if Robeson's son in his book makes such claims, we report them. He is a first rate source. That doesn't mean that anything he says is fact but that he said it. If Duberman or anyone else has contradictory information, please bring it on. Until then it is "put up or shut up!"
WP doesn't follow a "it has to be sourced to two or more sources" - nothing in the sources thus far has been contradictory to Robeson Jr's claims*, especially if Robeson Sr. - as you insisted - was not a member of the (atheist) Communist Party. Note also that sometimes people hold contradictory views, so Robeson's Marxism is not enough to contradict his religion.
And you can spare us comments expressing anti-Christian bigotry. OTOH, they clarify why you are so adamantly against any mentioning of Robeson's faith. You consider him a hero and consider Christianity evil superstition. Your hero cannot under any circumstances be a Christian and hence you deny, remove and censor the passages that violate your preconceptions. But you disrupt Wikipedia in the process. Str1977 (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
* Note also that I have even added "according to his son", removing any last doubts about whether this is NPOV. Str1977 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not tell anyone to shut up. Robeson was not a Chritian. He changed countless christian songs and took out words like "cross" , "god the glory" and "Jesus" etc. He loved his Christian friends, the black church and his father but he called the AME services "an opera" and was proudly secular. Or we could call him a Jew because he sang Jewish songs and loved Jewish culture with all his heart...Robeson was not a zombie bible thumping Christian. PR Jr is not a "FIRST RATE source" either-what a pov THAT is. He's BIAS as hell, that's HIS SON. Sons and scholars have MUCH different agendas. You are writing fiction and including povs YOU want about Robeson when you are not even novice knowledgeable on the subject eg: as to where Carnegie Hall is located! I will do my own edits and work with and repair/revert whatever is up there. I do not have to sit here and go over the dozens of errors (actually nearly a hundred) in your edit. I am not here to teach you basic facts about PR nor explain him to you. I'm here to edit an article and make sure it is factual, unbiased and well sourced.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC

Can you provide the statements about "opera" etc. in context and detail (or at least give a citation so I can have a look at it)?
Like him or not, Robeson Jr. is a citable source and has to stay. You insisted previously that his take on the Feffer meeting is the only thing worth including and now you suddenly complain that "He's BIAS as hell" - that is why his views are reported and attributed, not endorsed. You are under the misconceptions that "bias" is something unusual in sources. Well, Duberman is biased, Foner is biased, everyone is biased. Or do you simply scream "bias" whenever you don't like the information?
You say Robeson "loved his Christian friends" - apparently not a sentiment felt by you, when you talk about zombies. A Robeson-basher would be more justified to call him a zombie Stalin-thumping Communist. I would oppose that as I would oppose you as I actually want the article be neutral - neither eulogising nor vilifying its very complex subject. Str1977 (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything of the sort about Feffer. The meeting is a fetish for right wingers and as far as I'm concerned it can all go because PR Jr. has contradicted himself about what HE claims occurred but it should still be included nonetheless due to so much interest and conjecture. But no zombie "religious man" label for Robeson. You can't just make things up backed up by one quote out of context from his son because you believe in Jesus Christ. Robeson was secular he was NOT a religious man. False slander like that will not stand. To call him a "religious man" and a "Christian" is to not understand his history on a very deep level. Robeson was a secular humanist who had tolerance for religions not a blind or even daily moderate devotion.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did voicefully complain about how "my" version gave two versions side by side and did not simply adhere to what Robeson Jr. said. - whom you repeatedly but nonetheless falsely termed "the only source for the event. It turned out that there were several sources for the event, all falling into two basic views.

If you carefully read the article, you would see that I attributed the "religious man" wording to Robeson Jr., a reliable source. Though the wording "religious man" doesn't appear verbatim in Jr's passage, it is a fair summary. And it's not my view but his son's. The article doesn't state that "PR was a religious man" but that his son said so.
Thus far you have provided next to nothing to contradict this.
One more thing, your statements about my supposed religion are personal attacks. I will not hesitate to report your misbehaviour next time. Str1977 (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell others to "put up or shut up" then. Live by your own supposed "moral code" of being respectful. You've maintained that incorrectly labeling someone "religious" or a Christian is NOT an insult. I feel it is when it represents historical falsehoods.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Put up ..." is not insult but a colloquialism. You know that very well and what it means.
"You've maintained that incorrectly labeling someone "religious" or a Christian is NOT an insult."
Nonsense! I have done nothing of the sort. While "Christian" in my book is not an insult, incorrect labelling is a matter of disrespect. But I don't see any incorrect labeling unless Robeson Jr. was the culprit. But then, WP does not do original research but reports what others have already published.
Ah, and nowhere ever have I or the article or Robeson Jr. called Robeson a "Christian"! Where are you getting that from. Str1977 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Put up or shut up" may not be an insult in your world but a "colloquialism" as you claim. regardless, it is still considered as rude as heck by many people.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that you called sourced information "unsourced fiction", peppered up with a few insults against Christianity and repeated that over and over again, I don't think my remark was overly rude. Still, I am sorry if I offended you by it. Str1977 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

observations on conflict

As an outside observer who has been watching the article for sometime, it is obvious that editor Catherine's unwillingless to bend led to this spate of racists who have tried to own the article and who have been stalking and removing pages. She invited these hateful people to hang around clearly when a few simple changes a few months would have kept them and their hatred quiet. Yes, the original version reposted is much more readable and the Str edit poor, yet the lesson of Paul Robeson's history seems say "don't always be stubborn when you are in the right." Bend a little to protect oneself. Editor Catherine should have realized that and it is a lesson for all the egos here. itsmejudith: as a moderator why are allowing ethinc slurs against African-Americans like myself such as "Uncle Tom" to be used on wikipedia? Is hate speech allowed onto this article's discussion space? One can also see from your talk page that you have Str under your wing and have painted editor Catherine as "bad guy." Is this how wikipedia is run? As for Radh and Str, why are you here if you hate this man so much? You are so filled with hate for him and for African-Americans and those with left leaning views that it is disturbing. Most of your past months has been spent simply following the editor Catherine around like stalkers.

ColinAnthony (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not "a moderator". Hate speech isn't allowed on discussion pages. As an editor like yourself I am going to trace this back now and see whether there has indeed been an expression of racism that needs to be addressed. If you look back at my interactions with Catherine, you will see that I have been entirely civil. As is my common practice, I am trying to move the focus away from editor conduct and towards collaborative article improvement. I gave the example of how Harvey Milk was moved to FA - that's just one relevant precedent for how an article on a political figure can be presented. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I object to the above observation by Colin in as far as they simply attack me and another editor as "racist". I for my part can state that there's not a racist bone in my body and I have never used any racial epithets in discussions. (Sure tempers got heated and not all my postings were impeccably civil, but that is a different matter.) The other user did on two occasions made use of two problematic words, the "N word" and "Uncle Tom".
  • The former is certainly a racist slur and unacceptable but one also has to keep in mind that he used it to sarcastically refer to himself, decrying what he felt was a high-handed approach by Catherine to editors in opposition to her. Still, he shouldn't have used it.
  • The latter is a bit less loaded. The editor in question labelled Robeson's approach to the Soviet Union that way, taking up polemics found within the black community. Still, it was a good choice of wording.
That user can and has been criticised for his words but to paint him a racist simply for that is IMHO itself "hate speech".
Even more so in my case, as I have not even remotely done anything of the kind. Futhermore, Catherine has labelled me and other editors (even before my arrival) "racist" and other "niceties" from the get-go. For instance, see her immediate response to others in "Stop messing Up This article...EVERYONE" in the archives, which paints her opponents "white supremacist" in only the second sentence.
But I am willing to let bygones be bygones and, as Judith has stated, focus on improving this article. Will Catherine do the same? Str1977 (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
@"owns this article." We all know who thinks (s)he owns this article. And the recent socketpuppet contributor should be banned right away for calling str1977 a racist without any single reason. And could somebody please tell me why rap and hip hop is not racist and I am, it surely can't be because they are black. By the way Stalinism is also a form of racism.--Radh (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, Radh, be more careful with such accusations. I don't know whether Colin is a sockpuppet. I am more inclined to think he's (somewhat critical) friend Catherine called in, maybe the "black historian" she talked about. Still, it is a fact that Colin only registered 30 minutes before his posting here, thus far his only contribution to WP. I also don't think that he came to his accusation out of a impartial reading of the discussion but probably was pointed towards the two incriminated expressions and did not care much for the context. About the content of his accusation I already have said enough. Str1977 (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
ok, but @errors etc.: Robeson was in no way a pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement (the idea that Stalinists cared for human rights is also kind of strange). Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida Wells and many others were. But cf. Abolitionism. The NAACP was founded in 1909, nearly twenty years before a basically jewish, immigrant and white cpusa had its first significant number of African American members. A historian (a leftist and ex-member) says the percentage of African-Americans inside the cpusa was never near the percentage of African-Americans in the population as a whole.--Radh (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Carnegie Hall (and other errors?)

From the current article: "He then returned to Britain, where he gave two comeback performances at Carnegie Hall. The two sold-out concerts were released, his only stereo recordings." This is just one example. Can we revert back to the accurate article we used to have, instead of this botched edit? I see little use in working on the article in its current state. -- Foetusized (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no "accurate article we used to have" ever existed, we cannot revert to it. Blanket reverting is not a solution to fixing errors!
But of course any error should be rectified - I only wish you had specified the error in your posting (and not just your edit summary). Str1977 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. I created a separate section since this had nothing to do with Discography. Str1977 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I had to run yesterday so I couldn't fully explain this issue.
The error indeed was a stupid one but I simply did not think about the location of Carnegie Hall (to non-Americans it is not that present). However, the previous version did only locate the concerts in the general context of Robeson's comeback, which to the unwitting reader linked it to the period following the lifting of the passport ban. That the concert was mentioned in a certain section didn't help since that section spread from his first "casual singing" in the 1920s to his last performance in 1965 and anyway, events were mentioned all over the place in these previous versions.
Still, the error should not have happened and had to be recitified. I did so and again have to thank Foetussized for pointing it out.
If there are any errors left, please point them out as well. Str1977 (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Any errors "left?" It is almost all errors. removing the secretary who told Robeson that she "did not take dictation from Niggers?" Removing most of his persecution and hounding replacing it with unsourced soft whitewash?? It is a botched edit, now reverted. There is little use working on your version, it is far too bias, incorrect and bland. Str1977: As you blanket edited the article that was up there previously, your edit can be reverted too! I will not use it as a template and no rule says I have to. The previous and far superior edit only needed minor tweaks throughout. Str1977 you have dumped historical facts about Robeson to buoy what I feel is a right wing christian agenda which is not good editing. Robeson was not a Christian nor was he a "religious man." That is FICTION. He loved the USSR and Communism which abolished religion. He respected AME Christianity he did not follow it. The previous edit was much clearer and had up to date information about PR gathered in one place. What I reverted has so many errors, many woefully dated. Why do I have to spend hours upon hours pointing them all out and explaining why references you claim you don't like ARE sourced properly and not povs. You know what? I don't. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to be specific about the supposed errors or else we cannot correct them. This is not and cannot be about using real or supposed errors as an excuse to simply revert back to your jumbled and POV version. That it's "almost all errors" is just one more instance of your hyperbole. As for the issues raised above:
  • "removing the secretary who told Robeson that she "did not take dictation from Niggers?""
    This is not removed but clearly stated "he quit the firm after a white secretary refused to take dictation from him because of his race." - the only thing missing is the N word - I have no problem in general with citing it here but I also think that it doesn't add anything of informative value. So this is far from being an "error".
  • "Removing most of his persecution and hounding replacing it with unsourced soft whitewash"
    Also did not happen. the passage on his media isolation is shorter but does not contain any less information. Only the rhetoric your surrounded it with is gone. And I have repeatedly stated that this should be expanded with actual facts. NBC is not enough. There is no white wash!
You call me "bias" (sic!) despite your version being nothing but POV driven? I did not blanket revert the article but reworked the article based on the information already there, adding more. All you do is simply flush that work down the toilet and restore the previous version, riddled with jumbled structure, unashamed POV pushing etc.
I have not dumped historical facts. And like it or not, the religion issue is well sourced. That's what Robeson said in that interview, that's what his son wrote in the biography and until you provide any new material, the case is closed.
"He loved the USSR and Communism which abolished religion." is no basis to deny what he said elsewhere. You claim he "respected Christianity" but according to the logic just employed this cannot be since Communism does not respect religion at all. Also, should Robeson now be identified with anything the USSR or the CPSU ever did or thought? All the killings and persecutions? Wow, you come along as a defender of Robeson but you make him worse than any Horowitz could ever make him!
"The previous edit was much clearer" only in repeating over and over again that PR was the great Renaissance superman who fought for the good and was hounded by evil white men. The former article was clear about that. Only, that's not a neutral portrayal of the man and that's not what WP is about.
You don't have to do anything. But simply claiming "there are errors!" and "your version POV" in order to revert is not enough. I have amply demonstrated your POV pushing and the inferiority of your edits above. You apparently still have not realised the concept of NPOV if you claim that your sources did not contain POVs - sources naturally do! Str1977 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Str1977 you may want to consider the feedback of those who know this subject, you yourself have said you own no books on Robeson and have little knowledge about him.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider any feedback. And it is not true that I have read no books on him - though I do not OWN any, I have loaned and read several. When I came here, I had little knowledge of him but since then I have learned a lot. Your knowledge about details is probably still greater - which is why I would value your contribution to this article if only you could detach it from your extreme POV pushing. But the extent of your knowledge doesn't give you the right to make this article a POV mess. Str1977 (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "we." I will not use what you call an article as a template when it is riddled with errors. You are claiming ownership, not me. Your work is now not just displeasing me but others. Nor will I keep telling you where to find things when you own no books or videos. Robeson said the AME services and his dad's church was like "an opera" in a live on camera interviews it's in Here I stand and tallest Tree videos. Do your own research and please take the bible thumping elsewhere. There can be two articles at different times of the day or week because I will not work with the fabrications that are your's and neither will others. (eg: "NBC is not enough") NBC WAS THE MEDIA and wielded huge influence. You could not play any Robeson records on the radio or you'd lose your job. Are you aware of how facist the Cold War was? A man lost his job for seeing a Robeson concert! You are not aware of even basic US media/cold war history. The right wing white wash and errors are embarrassing to behold.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"However, the previous version did only locate the concerts in the general context of Robeson's comeback, which to the unwitting reader linked it to the period following the lifting of the passport ban."

Wow. What a transparent way to shift blame. Seriously. You need to take full responsibility for the fact you know virtually nothing about this subject. They WERE comeback concerts. Anyone who can read the edit now can see it is included in the international comeback because A.The quality of the shows precipitated his eventual return to the global stage and being hugely back by demand aka international comeback B. All of this occurred in 1958 the same year his passport was returned. Your long, long responses to why you are making errors don't change the fact they are errors.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh Catherine, save me your constant insults as they will not get you anywhere. Yes, they were comeback events but the "your" version in its muddled, confused chronology did not make it clear when these events took place. I have explained why I made that error and I am now through with it. Not that it should concern you! Str1977 (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Catherine,
I am not expecting you to do research or work for me but if you keep on deleting sourced information based on the claim that Robeson called religious services "opera" you are supposed to provide the reference for that claim. Notwithstanding, if Robeson said that it would still not warrant deleting sourced information but only augmenting it. Furthermore, from your announcements alone I cannot tell what exactly he meant my "opera" - is "opera" now a four letter word.
I have some Robeson books right here so don't come to me with your accusations that I was doing nothing.
"NBC WAS THE MEDIA and wielded huge influence. You could not play any Robeson records on the radio or you'd lose your job."
Well, yes, and all these things are included. If "we" can come up with more facts, I would gladly see them added.
"Are you aware of how facist the Cold War was? A man lost his job for seeing a Robeson concert! "
I could take your rage seriously had you not previously taken to downplaying events in the Soviet Union in your hagiography on Robeson. What you describe was bad, no doubt, but it is far from fascism!

People being stripped of their civil rights and human rights is of little consequence in your article. Its like is simply endemic to the times when sourced references prove the opposite. I'm not willing to work with your "overhaul" it is nearly all inaccuracies and it muddles and/or erases the current up to date research and news on the subject that one expects from wikipedia. I'll work on what was up there previously and continue to repost it.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I not say that what happened to that man was bad? However, I don't see civil (let alone human) rights involved in that case. What happened to Robeson was also bad but then again, no one has a civil (or human) right to sing to large audiences
Save the Carnegie Hall pointed out by someone else, you have thus far not pointed out one inaccuracy in the overhaul.
I can take your announcement only to mean that you are bent on edit warring and POV pushing. Str1977 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson prosecution was not just about being "denied concert halls!" That says it all.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What did I omit? What did I whitewash?
Robeson's "prosecution"? What was he prosecuted for? He was surveilled by the government, criticized by media reports (though not as unison as you would have it, see the NYT), he was boycotted by various people and institutions, had his passport taken away. The surveillance and the passport do affect his civil rights (though nowhere his human rights). You try to paint me someone disregarding the troubles he had or who okayed everything that was done to him. (Though I imagine if he had you as his enemy, worse things would happened to him.) In fact, I don't applaud how he was treated. The difference is that I also see where his opponents came from and why they did what they did and that not all of them were racist rascals and that it wasn't a "vast right wing conspiracy". A lot of people hated Robesons for a lot of reasons - a lot of people loved Robeson for a lot of reasons.
I really don't see how I or "my" version is unfair on the man, his accomplishments, his politics and the problems he phased. Str1977 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times? The NYT printed some of the worst lies ever about PR even long after he died, riddled with right wing racist povs. Your work is not a template that myself (and it seems others) are willing to work within as framework nor do many find it interesting nor accurate. "Nowhere his human rights?" Denial of opportunity to pursue ones livelihood and constant harassment is so whitewashed and glossed over in your work that it reads like Conservapaedio. The previous edit was an amalgamation of about two dozen editors and five years or so of collective work to make sure the article stayed neutral and it was before you. Collectively we will all keep working on the article as we all see fit with others including a friend of mine who teaches Black history at University joining us soon.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The point was that the NYT, unlike other articles, published a nuanced comment after the Paris speech. After he died? Didn't the NYT also eulogise him upon his death. Never mind, if you think only the Daily Worker was okay about Robeson, we still cannot follow its view. Your comments about "my" version is surreal. If your version was an "amalgamation", as you call it, then "mine" was one of two dozen editors plus one.
The notion that the article was neutral before is ridiculous - several editors have complained about its blazen onesidedness.
Qualifications in "black history" might be good, but one also needs knowledge about the Cold War and the will to write a neutral WP article, not hagiography, not pamphlets. You seem to be lacking either qualification. Str1977 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you and your friends simply post your rantings and ravings and strange ideas about everything under the sun from the New York Times to Robeson, Jr. to Stalin and human rights on your own blog and leave str and the Robeson articles well alone for the time being - you even brazenly declare that you will not, can not play by Wikipedia rules and work with other people!--Radh (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dream on. The rules? It says nowhere that any editors have to work with the article that you and your friend have put up. You want that used as template to work together on and I do not. Others do not as well. Foetusized has their reasons for disliking it as well and I'm certain more to follow.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"The previous edit was much clearer" only in repeating over and over again that PR was the great Renaissance superman who fought for the good and was hounded by evil white men. The former article was clear about that. Only, that's not a neutral portrayal of the man and that's not what WP is about."

No. Not at all. "Fought good." That's your claim, not mine. History simply and clearly stated with references is what should be there and it should not be taken personally if one's race "looks bad.". And yes. He was hounded by many white men, who would not do the same hounding towards the KKK or Neo-Nazis and who were exploiting and raping third world countries while they chortled on about "the free world." so frankly that is foul and very evil yet there is no need for delineation of said evil of which I've included none just the facts as they occured with sources.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not take it personally. It would have been just as bad in my view if the article made a white man a saint and painted all blacks as evil. Either way would be racist and bad.
I agree that those white anti-communists, HUAC in particular, did too little about right-wing groups. That has something to do with, after 1945, the U.S. being in a global conflict not with a Nazi world power but a Communist one. Still, it wasn't right. However, if one argues for HUAC. FBI etc. acting against right-wing groups, one cannot at the same time oppose government action againts Communists. That the things (but not all by the government!) that were done to Robeson were way out of proportion I do not question. But what's sauce for the right-winger is sauce for the left-winger as well.
"The free world" was exactly that. Free, but not perfect. Certainly much freer than the USSR Robeson so cherished. Freedom however also means that the government cannot order every citizen to be nice to Robeson or not to be racists. The Soviet government could do the former and hence Robeson thought everything was fine in Russia (which anway had no history of anti-black racism).
Whites sometimes "raped" Third World countries but in the year 2010 one should not talk as if that raping did not also include blacks as well. It is not a question of skin colour and to make it one would be racist.
Str1977 (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Robeson never tried to convert them to Christianity?"/ Robeson and religion

I removed Str1977 pov and non-neutral edit due to material like this:

"According to his son, Robeson in the early 1930s sometimes led his wife and young son in prayer, but would rarely attend church services as an adult or discuss his beliefs with his family, which did not share them - his mother-in-law was a militant atheist and his wife Eslanda an agnostic - and never tried to convert them"

That is not neutral. That is not even a quote and it is taken out of context from a book that was not seemingly read in it's entirety but likely cherry picked via google books. It is also poppycock. To suppose that Robeson would try to "convert" someone he would have to have been a regular and hardcore participating member of a religion bent on getting people to follow their beliefs like Catholicism. Ma Goode was not " a militant atheist" either, yet another abject falsehood and misleading way of painting the subject as what he was not via a right wing pov. His son uses that term casually and have you read the following pages which are omitted in the preview?Catherine Huebscher (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

CH,
the section title already shows your unwillingness to be precise. Nowhere does it say anything about "Christianity".
everything that I put into the article is taken straight from Robeson Jr.'s book who in turn quotes Robeson Sr.'s interview. If Robeson Jr. called his grandmother "a militant atheist" (and he does so verbatim), it is not you or me or anyone else to deny that. Who is to say that he uses that term casually? Certainly not your or I! Do you have a published source contradicting this? If not, you have no standing in WP terms to deny it!
What you think this or that statement presupposes is of no concern to me. Take it out with Paul Robeson Jr., if you must.
I did not cherry-pick from the book and am well aware about the pages following - I have the book here with me. Nothing follows that contradicts these statements.
Get real, Catherine! Str1977 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added more on the issue, having looked into Duberman, who gives similar statements. Details may still be missing but it would take a lot to dislodge the fact that Robeson was a "spiritual man", now that his son and his principal biographer have been found to state that.
I have removed some details which you criticised. The "covert" bit is not needed - it follows that if PR rarely talked about religion, he did not try to convert. The precise views of Essie and her mother are also not that important as this is Paul's article and as long as it is clear that they did not share his views, whatever they were.
Str1977 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Your grasping to make him a "religious man" which he was not and trying to create (and edit) what is not there. I will make sure you do not do this as it is false and an attempt at leading the reader.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, trying to label Str1977 as having a right-wing POV is uncalled for and doesn't help your case. The article needs to stick to what the good sources say. Simple as that. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 vandalized the subheading which is why I responded. I'm being called the reverse and once again I'm being taken to task by an admin while their bad behavior (including radh's usage of racial slurs like "nigger" and "uncle Tom") mostly goes unchecked. I know that if I had used similar terms, I'd have been banned on the spot so I ask politely that we all be held to the same standards of conduct. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"Duberman, Martin. Paul Robeson, 1987, pg 410, "...he was not a religious man in any formalistic sense, he was nonetheless an intensely spiritual one...and drew fundamental strength from a deep cultural identification with his people and their religion." One can be spiritual and secular as many agnostics are. According to Duberman, he was NOT "a religious man" nor was he in position to "convert or NOT convert."Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, claiming that Duberman stated "Robeson was not a religious man" is mispresenting the source, especially when making it an absolute, unqualified statement. Duberman made a qualified statement about "not religious in a certain sense, but spiritual". Furthermore, only Robeson himself knows his own heart and hence Duberman's take - as much as I welcome and respect it - is only his take on the matter. Still, I do consider Duberman as first among equals among Robeson biographers. Str1977 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
That's well sourced, and fine, so is a statement taken from Robeson Jr.'s book. We assume good faith on the part of other editors so that we can have a clear-headed discussion about how best to use our sources. See how Str1977 constructively suggests how to rewrite the offending sentence. We are all held to the same standards of conduct, in fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Str1977 suggests writing within HIS version of the article though which myself and others do not feel is a salvageable template/article. As an editor I choose to work with the previous/or a different edit. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Str has made useful contributions, some of which should definitely stay, others of which should be discussed. For me, the main problem with the article is that it is too long. But I don't see any quick fix for shortening it - the underlying problem being that the subject led an extremely eventful life. There's not even any obvious way to fork some of it into daughter articles. In these circumstances, any edit that summarises material should be considered on its merits and not immediately dismissed as being based on a POV. We have to give readers credit for being able to make up their own minds. So long as there are references to the sources, those who wish to know more can use the article as a starting point. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know the article is long. That's because I tried to include everything to be said about Robeson into it and deal with it in a NPOV manner. The former version (the one Catherine prefers) however was even longer and included less notable information, chosing instead to repeat facts all over again, delving into needless detail (including long guest lists of birthday celebrations) and rhetoric.
The article could be split into several sub-articles, with the main article being thinned out to include only the general lines. However, the previous sub-articles did neither do that very well nor were they divided along proper lines. Examples could be "Early life/education of PR", "Development of PR's Political thought", "Activism of PR" and even the already existing "PR and Communism". Str1977 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
More possibilities for brevity is reducing the details about events there is already an article, e.g. the Peetskill riots. Str1977 (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Str1977's version is considered too long as well though and when sub-articles were created he wholesale deleted them or tagged them for deletion instead of improving them. He deleted the labor sub article without asking myself who created it or discussing it, yet he's not taken to task for that kind of sneaking vandalism. See Bill Tunnell's succinct rewrite on the Jack Robinson sub article please which Str1977 wanted deleted and which he has now tagged yet again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson_Congressional_Hearings

What it has come down to is others, myself included, do not want to rework HIS version/rewrite/overhaul. He came onto the article , as you can see above claiming the article made "whites look evil" and "Robeson look like a saint" when one can see that's not the case. Robeson dealt with and fought white supremacy on an institutionalized scale his entire life (his father was a slave) and Str1977's edit glosses over this and in some sections omits it altogether. Many other key events and stances that Robeson took against white supremacy. Like the religion section which was mostly bogus when sourced properly ("never tried to covert them" and "Paul Robeson was a religious man"), Str1977 seems to warrant guidance to correct/clarify/refine his edits/factual errors. When a glaring error like Carnegie Hall being in the UK is pointed out he redistributes blame instead of simply correcting it. A refined, up to date, collective work, worked on by many editors of varying opinions who have removed povs and used multiple sources is already available and I can work within that with others.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But why did I tag or redirect them. "PR and Jackie Robinson" could even make up its mind about the topic back than. The "Labor" article was just a long list and itinary of Robeson doing this and that. I salvaged some bits into the PR article but the rest was not notable for anything.
I did not gloss over harassment of PR and included the very same facts as the previous version did. Only I reduced the rhetoric.
And no, I never shifted the blame on anyone for that one mistake. I merely explained. Needless to say that you did not inform be or that you have thus far not explained where claims like "insulin shock therapy" came from - refs were given but they turned out to be false. Str1977 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Lets work bit by bit. I have made edits today that you probably won't agree with, not necessarily perfect, but I can defend them. We do have to ensure that the article is neutral. If you believe that the record on Robeson needs to be put straight, that is the only way to proceed. Not that Wikipedia really is a place for putting the record straight... One major point we could get consensus on is whether the article would benefit from being more strictly chronological in structure. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd that you claim I "probably won't agree" when I do wholeheartedly with your changes because they are apt. What I'm very concerned about is inclusions by Str1977 of huge sweeping brush strokes like tagging someone who was secular and personally spiritual as a "religious man" who would "never try to convert." That creates a huge, bias shift in how the subject is perceived via the fictionalized embrace of organized religion. Religious practice or opting out of said is a definable part of one's personality and personal history. It's like saying "Malcolm X was also an atheistic man."

As for structure, agreed again. Given the vast international and multi-dimensional life the subject led, a chronology is a challenge but once again myself and others will be working on that within the framework of the edit Str1977 did not create. The article's editing remains an open process for all to share.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2010 (UT

Don't make a deal out of the religious phrasing. It was sourced to Robeson Jr, and Str agreed to reword. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Given what Robeson Jr. wrote, "religious" (a very general term) was a fair summary. I have taken that out because Robeson Jr. did not use that exact term. And by including what Duberman wrote about the subject (who did not call Robeson "non-religious" either), a much more nuanced phrasing was included. But they need to be included. I have no problem with other author's views being included but what Robeson Jr. and Duberman wrote is certainly relevant.
But "Robeson would not follow in his father's footsteps as a religious man or church going Christian, choosing to have reverence for the black church and a personal spirituality in tandem with a secular lifestyle." is totally unsourced and a great deak contradicts what Robeson Jr. and Duberman said. Not speaking of using unclear, mostly meaningless terms like "secular lifestyle". Str1977 (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Which Duberman bio do you have? It is completely sourced by Duberman and by the way he led his life. One could simply quote Duberman too as I did in my footnotes. You may have a different copy with different page numbers.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have the first edition of Duberman's Paul Robeson, published by Alfred A. Knopf, NY, in 1988 (though the copyright also states 1989), 804 pages long (including references).
What your write above is not a fair representation of what Duberman wrote. And "the way he led his life" is not a published, reliable source, is it. You have to be better than this.
I sourced my version to specific pages - you did not add. To add a ref saying "Duberman, Martin. Paul Robeson, 1989, pgs" is ridiculous. What pages?
Str1977 (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Catherine,
your version still is obvious in its bias and not a fair reflection of what the sources say. Duberman and Robeson speak, each in his own way, about how Robeson was religious/spiritual but you make of this that he did NOT "follow his father's footsteps", was NOT "deeply religious" (weasel word), followed a "secular lifestyle" or "secularism" (very vague, unclear wordings) - and another matter alltogether. Your version drains the passage of any substantive information and is merely interested in driving the not-religious angle home. It also uses strange wordings like "in tandem with". Str1977 (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: this edit. Unless you provide a reliable, secondary source that interprets the Titterton interview in this way, this view cannot be used or included. It is certainly no basis to simply write the interview and the views expressed in them out of existence. Str1977 (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Which version?

Catherine above has stated "HIS version of the article though which myself and others do not feel is a salvageable template/article. As an editor I choose to work with the previous/or a different edit."

I myself do not feel that "her" version is a salvagable template. I am not opposed to changing it where necessary after a reasonable discussion. I have laid out my reasoning for the structure I used (against hers where things pop up here and there and go back and forth) and which aimed at concisely presenting every period or issue (instead of three subdivisions on the Spanish Civil War or other things). The same goes for the intro. If need be, I am willing to argue each and every item again.

Furthermore, given Catherine's highly disruptive style thus far, I cannot be expected to simply accept the result of her constant reverting. As I said: I am not opposed to changing it where necessary after a reasonable discussion. Str1977 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And I find your actions disruptive. Your running off to admins lying about my actions. You've tagged articles without stating why and deleted articles that took months to source before any discussions even took place and you want seemingly non-stop interaction over topics that should be easy to solve with a few words. Time is being wasted that could be going to better use. I am unable to work with your version. Key events, pivotal in Robeson's history, are whitewashed or omitted such as the leaving out of his athletic career which saw him as one of the top college and pro football players in the US, from the lead sentence. Robeson was an athlete, scholar, singer, actor and political activist. Well over a dozen historians back that up. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 8:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I never lied about your actions (another bad faith accusation). Time is being wasted by your insistence to accept nothing less than your version which is so riddled with POV pushing it is unbearable, so confused as to its structure.
Nothing is omitted in "my" version, certainly not his sports records being erased (the most stupid action ever taken by (academic) authorities against the man, though not the most injurious). It is mentioned and even appears in a section header. All that is left out is your assertion that he was "the greatest football player ever".
Robeson was a singer, actor, athlete and political activist. He is not notable as a "scholar" (you've been though this with Radh before). But most of his notability derives from his artistic activities (singing and playing) and his activism. The infobox BTW is the "musical artist" one, hence the years active should reflect his years as a singer and actor, not his sports achievements. Notable though these were, this is not where his fame derives from. Str1977 (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

When you are one if not the most famous football player of your era, known nationally, where does your fame derive from? Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

His artistic work and his activism way eclipse his sports achievements, which were limited to a very distinct phase in his life and did not give him mainstream recognition, only in a limited sphere.
I do think that the "years active" bit is tricky if one, like Robeson, delved in that many fields. But if you include his sports, why stop there, why not include his school career, beginning in elementary school? As I said, the infobox is of the "musical artist" type - this type was chosen for a reason.
And that he was "the most famous football player of your era" is not simply an established fact. Str1977 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the dozens of factual errors and flaws in Str1977's edit

    • "Also an advocate on behalf of the Soviet Union, he became a target of Anti-communism; as a result, he was put under surveillance by U.S. and British intelligence "

Incorrect. He was put under surveillance and persecuted as much for Anti-imperialism, anti-lynching activism and civil rights as he was for Communist affiliations it is proven via over a dozen historians and thousands of FBI files AND MI6 documents. Whitewashing that proves that you really do not know the subject matter's pivotal events or an attempt to whitewash white supremacy via the "collective anti-commie hysteria endemic to the era."

Whitewash again. He was a forerunner and pioneer of the US civil rights movement, not simply a "supporter."

    • "She initially endured his extramarital affairs[1] but her tolerance was at an end in 1929, when Robeson began an affair with British actress Yolande Jackson.[2] After Robeson refused to be reigned in and even started a second (though short-lived) affair with actress Peggy Hart-Davis, in 1930, Eslanda suffered a nervous breakdown and for a while, Eslanda stayed with her mother in Switzerland and Austria. At the time, Eslanda also got pregnant and underwent a botched abortion, angering her husband and rupturing their relationship further."

Is this about Eslanda or painting PR in a very, negative light from cherry picking via his son's perspective, or both? Povs and non sequitur drama writing with google books which is his son's bio and which omits many pages as your sole source? Not really viable if you are going to be getting so deeply into a subject's personal. I use over seventeen books to reference. A "botched abortion" which may or may not have happened (no record and how old was Jr. at the time?) but sections about the Spanish Civil War, Anti-imperialism and Labour movement are deleted?

    • "Robeson rarely attended church services[3] and cared little about "formal religious ties", but in a 1929 entry in his diary expressed the thought that his career and his marriage to be part of a "higher plan", writing: "God watches over me and guides me. He's with me and let's my fight my own battles and hopes I'll win"

"BUT" is pov pushing. The overly lengthy and pathologically pushy religious section (I could not cover all of it, it's massive) is as false as false can be. This warrants one to two sentences maybe three and as many different references. Once again it is apparently deeply personal to Str1977 that Robeson be seen as a Christian, God fearing and religious. Just a clear attempt to make Robeson something he was not and to grossly embellish the unequivocally secular life he led. Prayer and meditation, singing spirituals, are not necessarily non-secular, since the concept of spirituality and higher consciousness are not married solely to any religion but are practiced and arose independently across a continuum of cultures. The material (all sourced from his son via Google books yet again) is given more space than his life at Rutgers or Columbia Law school. Not a good editing job!

WRONG: Robeson plays two characters, Sylvester and Isiah.

Omits the history surroundings the project and that it closed after two performances.

    • Given his Soviet sympathies, Robeson opposed anti-communist legislation."

Wrong. You mean given his support of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Total leading of the reader and POV pushing. He opposed it, in his own words as "a violation of our most basic civil liberties and democracy." That kind of writing should be on Conservapaedio.

There are dozens more and the above is only but a few of far too many examples of an edit I feel is not salvageable. His POV pushing is out of control. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 9:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your items:

  1. Most of the troubles he faced was due to his communist ties. That is stated by FBI files and is apparent regarding his isolation in the 1950s. Surely, other issues play a role too but on a much smaller scale. You may call Anti-communism "hysteria" but our article cannot endorse that POV both for reasons of NPOV and because that would not be informative for our readers.
  2. You say he didn't "support" but "pioneered" the civil rights movement. IMO, this is merely rhetoric. No matter how important he was, he was not bigger than that movement.
  3. Regarding the marriage situation, this is a fair summary of what her son wrote. Duberman also writes similarly. On one point he states, that at a later point in time, Essie had had to accept her husband's ways if she wanted to stay Mrs Robeson and that she did. But during the Yolanda/Peggy affairs Essie certainly was not as "tolerant".
    And no, this is not about painting Robeson as bad as possible (another bad faith insinuation) but to portray the matter as truthfully as possible. To use your phrase, you "whitewash" the marriage situation.
    You keep on harping about google books but there is nothing wrong with accessing books via that website for starters. It's quick access. Right now, I have both Jr. books beside me and, of course, they are saying the same things. But apparently you still refuse to accept that Robeson Jr. is a reliable source in wiki-terms, so there's no going round him. Your 17 books mean nothing if they don't contradict Robeson Jr. on that.
    Sections about the Spanish Civil War, Anti-imperialism and Labour movement are not actually "deleted" - they are still there, reduced in rhetoric but expanded in information. "My" Spanish section for instance really explains how this was a pivotal time in PR's life (with the change in his thinking about politics and arts) - yours doesn't.
  4. If it is merely the "but" you are worried about, we can do without that. But (sorry, my thought!) ... but you are simply removing information sourced to Duberman, sourced to Robeson Jr. because you don't like it. The section is neither pushy nor overly long given the present size of the article. Sure, it may also be "outsorced" in time. The section does not at all push "my view" but what the relevant sources state. "Secular" is too ambiguous a word for you to build so much on it. No one stated that Robeson was a Christian in the strictest sense or that he was his beliefs were simply confined to one religion. However, if his beliefs were as complex as the man, the section must necessarily be longer or it cannot but misrepresent. That's what your version is doing.
  5. My version may be wrong about Body and Soul, but then so is yours. I have taken that info directly from the article as I first found it. The mistake is not mine! Are you now saying I should have written the article from scratch? I never claimed that I did.
  6. Regarding the Toussaint play, I also included the information already given. I certainly have no objection against adding more (as you did). And that information is missing is not a mistake but simply something missing.
  7. Did he or did he not oppose anti-communist legislation? No matter whether one approves of that legislation or not, to say he opposed it is factually true. That he did not completely oppose jailing political opponents however is also on the record, as he supported the jailing of Trotskyist. To reduce this to the "First amendment" (which actually says nothing at all for or against outlawing subversive groups) is purely hagiographic whitewash. He wanted his Communist friends to be freed - no more, no less.

If there are dozens more, bring them on. Maybe they are better then these. In any case, some of your items demonstrated what you deem "mistake", what you think about accept the statement of reliable sources, your take on neutrality etc. Thanks for that. Str1977 (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


I'm no longer correcting and your work and you do not know this subject matter. I'm no longer wasting my time on your errors which are now countless. You can't stay on topic but like Radh you veer into anti-Communist straw-men like the Nixon-Mundt Bill. Nothing you referenced had anything to do with the bill and "Soviet sympathies" which in the context you used it was a rabid pov. Do your own research and read more books. Your edit is a pov push.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 6:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

    • You may call Anti-communism "hysteria" but our article cannot endorse that POV both for reasons of NPOV and because that would not be informative for our readers.

He opposed the Bill . I never said he did not as you've tried to twist my apt criticism around. He opposed it on the grounds of civil liberties violations not through "soviet sympathies." How YOU choose to interpret his views and demo of civil liberties is NOT what this is about. He opposed the bill for the reasons that I cited not due to "USSR sympathies" THAT shows your pov pushing to a T. Robeson opposing the bill has nothing to do with the Trotsky followers. That gets mentioned elsewhere not as some pov push to show Robeson in the way YOU want him portrayed. Robeson opposed the bill over the basic violation of civil liberties NOT the USSR. 328-329 Duberman.

The above is why you are not a viable person to work with as well. It may be language barrier as I'm assuming you are not from an English speaking country as you've implied. What I wrote was nothing of the sort in wanting "anti-Communist hysteria" included in the article which it never was on my edits!!! I was pointing out out how I feel YOU white washed. And YET AGAIN you've created yet another attempt and deflecting your mistake. You have not read the FBI files (I've read every page available) nor have you read the HUAC transcripts, nor have you read the reasons for his passport being lifted if you had you would see that Anti imperialism was NOT a smaller scale issue nor were civil rights!!! MY work is all sourced and cited and what you wrote "In keeping with his Soviet sympathies" is a blatant pov push.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"He opposed it on the grounds of civil liberties violations not through "soviet sympathies.""
That is not a neutral, factual observation. If that were the case, it would be "civil liberties of Communists", since he obviously had no problem with civil liberties of Trotskyists being violated - nay, he even insisted that these would have to be violated. Still, the "Soviet sympathies" can also be removed from this passage.
Your second paragraph shows again that you are little interested in discussing the article. You make this ad hominem and argue not against my edits but against me as a person, for my not being accepted into editing this article. No, I have not read every FBI or HUAC page but I don't have to work towards NPOV and good presentation. Neither does your extensive delving into Robeson literature ensure neutrality or good presentation. "My" work is just as sourced as yours (no wonder, given that I build on earlier foundations, including your work). And as long as you think you're entitled to censor sources at will, I will not be lectured by you about sourcing.
Out of your list of dozens Str1977 errors, only three actually were real issues at all, only two were errors (Carnegie Hall, Body and Soul), only one (Carnegie Hall) was actually inserted by me. And all issues have been rectified. Str1977 (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology edit

Hi Judith, Bill, Fosteuized, and others, I am currently working on the article and in the process fleshing out the 1940s and WW2 era as well as the harassment by the US govt, FBI, CIA and M16 plus newly released film history and stage shows no one has referenced from the first book on Robeson just published about his films and stage work indepth. The Labor section is going to be fleshed out more because it was a second career for him as well as his work pioneering the civil right movement. I'd like to make a sub article about his health breakdown as it was and still is a huge source of controversy to Robeson scholars and fans with new information emerging since Duberman's admittedly inconclusive account over 20 years ago.I was shocked at how many sub articles Lennon has for "Bed-In" "bagism" and for tours while Robeson who was equally famous for his era, are deleted. I feel there needs to be a Robeson portal. He was unmistakably one of the most famous people of the 20th century despite his erasure from nearly all US school history books. I grew up hearing about slags like Lindbergh instead. Do note Judith that you requested/suggested a very hard subject to organize with dates chronologically. Cheers!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality is more important than quantity, both for Robeson and for Lennon. I cited the Lennon biography because it is FA. But sometimes what happens is that in order to get an article to FA, stuff is forked off into subarticles of lesser quality, where it remains, unexamined. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If we're all agreed that the article will be structured chronologically, I shall make edits to all the material up to 1924. That will mean breaking up the material on his marriage. Just done something a bit similar on Annie Besant. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Great feedback. Still working on the article and will be moving the HUAC hearings to the congressional hearings page Bill re-added. Regarding quantity, Milk, Lennon and Besant led lives that were not nearly as eventful or as large in scope as Robeson's. The others were not systematically censured and blacklisted during the height of their fame either so there is a challenge on length. Huge portions of his life and achievements were erased from history books/media in the USA. As you can see from discussion topics people believe he was not a civil rights forerunner simply because they have never heard of him.

Jessica Simpson's FRAGRANCES have sub articles? and Robeson has TWO? That makes no sense. He needs a full portal. Thanks again for your help. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There don't actually seem to be articles for Simpson's fragrances. They've been deleted. Quite right too, we ought to have articles on Chanel No. 5 and a few others. WP:OTHERCRAP applies. I'm not in principle against splitting material off into subarticles, but it has to be in a controlled and sensible way. It'll work best if done collaboratively and not too fast. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Judith, Catherine has repeatedly made such false statements about some starlet (including Madonna, the singer) having much more sub article. Though several of these starlets' sub-articles are/were not very rigorously notable, they usually were topics linked to these persons, e.g. records and films, spouses and relatives, places they lived in etc. - sub-article of this kind also exist for Robeson ... and not too few. Nobody opposed any or all sub-articles for Robeson but only very specific ones that either lacked an actual topic (PR and Jackie Robinson) or had to little in potential content (PR and Spanish Civil War) or were merely chronologicals lists of Robeson activities (PR and the labor movement) or were, at the time, merely copies of the main articles (PR and communism). Each article had/has its own specific problems. Str1977 (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure

In the following section I want to show how Catherine's version suffers from an unbearable structure. Hence I will not talk here about the content but about how the content is organised.

Here's the TOC in her version (leaving out the filmography, reference section etc):

   * 1 Early life and education
         o 1.1 Rutgers University
         o 1.2 Columbia Law School
         o 1.3 Language scholarship
   * 2 Marriage and family
   * 3 Career in entertainment
         o 3.1 Early stage work and Eugene O'Neill
         o 3.2 Othello and Show Boat
         o 3.3 Spirituals and concert singing
         o 3.4 Hollywood and international film career
         o 3.5 Ballad for Americans
   * 4 The Welsh coal miners
   * 5 The Spanish Civil War
         o 5.1 The Artist Must Take Sides speech
         o 5.2 Robeson in Spain
         o 5.3 Legacy
   * 6 Anti-colonialist activism
         o 6.1 The Council on African Affairs
         o 6.2 Paul Robeson "Lost Shepherd"
         o 6.3 Response to apartheid in South Africa
         o 6.4 Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam
   * 7 Labor movement and trade union activism
   * 8 The Paris Peace Congress
   * 9 Congressional statement by Jackie Robinson
   * 10 The Soviet Union and the Communist Party
         o 10.1 Tenney and House Un-American Activities Committees
         o 10.2 Stalin
         o 10.3 Robeson's defense of Socialism
   * 11 U.S. civil rights stances and reactions
         o 11.1 "We Charge Genocide"
         o 11.2 The Progressive Party
         o 11.3 Trotskyists
   * 12 Peekskill Riots
   * 13 Passport ban and media isolation
         o 13.1 Passport ban
   * 14 International comeback
         o 14.1 England and the U.S.S.R
         o 14.2 Final performance of Othello
   * 15 Final concert tour
         o 15.1 Anger at the press
         o 15.2 Support for the Australian Aborigines
   * 16 Health breakdown and MKULTRA claims
         o 16.1 Moscow hospitalization
         o 16.2 Electro-convulsive treatment at The Priory
         o 16.3 FBI, MI5 and MI6 surveillance in Britain
         o 16.4 FBI and CIA status of health files
         o 16.5 Paul Robeson's Jr.'s research and theory
         o 16.6 Martin Duberman's theory
         o 16.7 Recovery in East Germany
   * 17 Final years
   * 18 70th birthday celebration
         o 18.1 75th birthday celebration
         o 18.2 Death and funeral service
   * 19 Legacy and selected posthumous honors
  • Section 1 "Early life and education" is okay apart from it containing 1.3 "Language scholarship", which belongs to a totally different time period. Certainly not part of his "early life"
  • In Section 3 "Career in entertainment", though essentially good if taken by itself, the main problem is its relationship (or lack thereof) with other sections, with other events occurring in parallel. Especially the sectin 3.5 "Ballad for Americans" is out of place - why does a single song merit an entire section. It also works badly chronologically since some of his stage and film work postdates that Ballad. 3.5. which is the counter part of my "World War II" section also cannot cover what else Robeson did during the war.
    It is certainly possible to simply divide Robeson's life (since the 1920s) into the artistic and the political sphere. But then it has to be done consistently and the structure within these spheres has to be properly done. However, we will then run into trouble with his comeback in the 1960s. I for my part opt for making chronology the general basis of structure.
  • Politics are the content of the following sections (4-13) but this is given no overarching section. Issues just pop up out of nowhere, without any introduction.
  • First pops up Section 4 "The Welsh coal miners", never mind that the first issue relevant for Robeson in the UK (again, no overall section) is the race issue. The Welsh coal miners are detached from the natural context, Robeson labor activism. Whether the Welsh legacy is not better dealt with side by side with other legacies is also an issue.
  • Equally detached comes Section 5 "The Spanish Civil War". Though it states that this was the turning point in his life, it does not make it clear how. What PR did here is based on earlier developements, regarding trade unionism and especially socialism. Also, the section is strangely divided into three sub-sections
  • Section 6 "Anti-colonialist activism" now introduces the chronologically much earlier African issues. The section notes (very briefly) his first travel to the USSR - how is that "anti-colonialism"? Then it breaks off into totally unrelated sub sections. The "Lost shepherd" doesn't deal with Robeson's activism at all and is only understandable in light of the Paris speech issue and the pass port issue. Since "Lost shepherd" is presented prematurely, the sub-section needs to explain the context in a needlessly complicated fashion. If that episode had been placed properly, no explanation would be needed. His South Africa activism belongs to the post-war period - statements about Vietnam come even later. This last section is the most problematic as a) it is POV pushing to clearly label this "anti-colonialist" as the Vietnam war was also a war among Vietnamese. Furthermore, this section deals with no more than one article penned by Robeson in 1954 and another, unsourced statement in 1975.
  • Section 7 "Labor movement and trade union activism" again goes back to the impact of the Welsh coal miners. This shifting back and forth and back is not a good structure.
  • The following sections (8-9) jump ahead to 1950 and plunge into Section 8 "The Paris Peace Congress", Section 9 "Congressional statement by Jackie Robinson" of course follows from this (but that alone does not merit a single sub-section, let alone a section).
  • After that, finally, the very important issue of Socialism/Communism appears in Section 10 "The Soviet Union and the Communist Party" but gives no explanation about how he came to be a Socialist, not a word about his travels to the Soviet Union. (A note on the content is needed here: the section paints U.S. officials in the blackest colours, with some charges lacking proper sourcing - Duberman 253-254 is false! - and then turns around and paints the USSR and its minority policy in the brightest colours. Sure Robeson perceived it that way and, IMO, was taken in by it. But it is unacceptable to write it like that in the year 2010.) The following sub-sections jump back and forth, first the Section 10.1 "Tenney and House Un-American Activities Committees" (1946), which then also includes his 1956 statement to HUAC - two commitees separated by ten years should not be lumped together like this. Next Section 10.2 "Stalin" first relates Robeson's eulogy (1953), then again jumps to the HUAC hearing in 1956, then jumps back again to 1939 and the Hitler-Stalin pact. The Stalin peace prize would best be placed here (and removed from the intro) but it is omitted. Many things are left unsaid. (What about Robeson's stance on World War II before 1941? Later developments under Khrushchev.) The next Section 10.3 "Robeson's defense of Socialism" again jumps back to the 1930s and then generally gives his view about criticism of the Soviet Union but does not place them in any understandle context.
  • Next Section 11 "U.S. civil rights stances and reactions" pretty much arbitrarily lists some stances and gives sub-sections for detailed issues, chronologically out of place: Section o 11.1 "We Charge Genocide" is dated to 1951, Section 11.2 "The Progressive Party" to 1948 (before the Paris Speech and consequences). Section 11.3 "Trotskyists" does stand detached from it all, given that this Robeson activism against civil rights. But this is never noted.
  • Section 12 "Peekskill Riots" again jumps back to the aftermath of the Paris speech but the connection is never noted. The ignorant reader (as I was one once) cannot understand any background to this.
  • Section 13 "Passport ban and media isolation" follows up chronologically upon the last section, but to the ones before that. Basically it is okay structurally, though a section with a single sub-section is always strange.
  • Nothing wrong structurally about Section 14 "International comeback", but Section 15 "Final concert tour" should be a sub-section to it. The sub-sections in 15 are uncalled for.
  • Section 16 "Health breakdown and MKULTRA claims" jumps back and forth between factual sections (16.1-3, 7) and claims about government machinations (16.3-6), giving greath length to Robeson Jr's theory, not mentioning others (Anna Louise Strong, Herbert Marshall). Furthermore, fact and theory is not clearly distinguished as there's jumping back and forth within these sections as well.
  • Nothing wrong structurally with Section 17 "Final years", but then follow:
  • An entire section on his "70th birthday celebration" - this getting out of hand. No article on WP should have a section on a birthday celebration. A brief mentioning is okay but not an entire section. Strangely Section 18.1 "75th birthday celebration" is a sub section to this. Is his 75th birthday celebration part of his 70th anniversary? Needless to say that such a (sub) section again is undue weight (especially the guest list). How is Section 18.2 "Death and funeral service" subordinate to the "70th birthday"?
  • Section 19 "Legacy and selected posthumous honors" is okay structurally but actually doesn't contain any legacy but merely list posthumous honours.

I think I have shown that the structure of Catherine's version is seriously defective. Jumping back and forth, ripping asunder things that are linked, giving great space to details while totally omitting or downplaying other information, creating spurious "birthday sections" etc. There's no way this can be the basis of further work. Str1977 (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronological structure rather than thematic structure is the way to go. Unless we agree to treat the music career entirely separately from the political views. See Gilad Atzmon for a biography that does that (and is still embattled). But even then the political life should be recounted chronologically. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be treated separately but given how much time and material I've amassed I have no problem creating a chronology in the vein of the great Harvey Milk article. His life was much shorter, sadly and less eventful but he is a great example and one of his chief biographers is also Robeson's. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You can find more featured biographies here. I looked at a few of the political ones, which were structured chronologically. And music biographies. Bob Dylan is chronological, and I think does a good job of situating his musical development within the wider world of 1960s events. But John Lennon has a separate section for the politics. See how these articles maintain NPOV by sticking to the sources and avoiding what we call "coatracking". Thus they are useful to readers who may be sympathetic to the subjects, unsympathetic, or not yet have any view at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Catherine, why work on a chronological article when such a one already exists in my overhaul. (And I take it that you mean a "chronological article" and not a chronology - a list of dates we do not need.)
Judith, I fully agree with the principles about sympathetic, unsympathetic or no view at all and also about the problem of coatracking.
Str1977 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Str1977's edit is a botched one that is not something in choose to work with. It tells the reader about Robeson as viewed by Right wing America viewed. His edit is MUCH more pov than mine ever was.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can say the same for your version. Difference is it would be true. You obviously lack the ability to take a stept back in your observations about the people you like or dislike. Everyone who read a little bit by you, immediately sees that. Str1977 (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And I have tried to take every bit of POV, narrative style and drama writing out of what is up there and it is nearly all gone. Ben Davis was a Communist. Dies, Rankin and Bilbo were white supremacists. Not povs and they are figures in Robeson's history. There is a lot of material that shows his support for the USSR and the CPUSA too including a second article.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 1:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Welsh miners section

I'm not against having more details on his contacts with the Welsh miners. It seems to have been crucial in him developing his political engagement. But the section as it stands is just a microcosm of the problems with structure in the article. It takes us all the way from him meeting miners in 1928 through to the 2000s and his granddaughter. One of the key sources is a deadlink BTW. Let's deal with the 1928 meeting in its place, then with the 1930s contacts in a later section, and so forth. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Again, Catherine is mixing events of one period (the effect of Welsh coal miners on Robeson during his UK years) with that of another (the telephone concert in 1957) and adds legacy stuff more relevant to an article about Susan the grand-daughter. They are three totally different items and should be dealt with separately. Str1977 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I felt in that section it was apt as it should be a separate sub-article given that he is part of their history now so that was what I was going for. people will search specifically for Wales but I can easily see separating it chronologically like eveything else should ideally be. I will do it now and add sources etc.

Ok done!Catherine Huebscher (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Robeson and Welsh coal miners doesn't yield enough to be a sub-article of its own. It might be part of a larger sub-article, e.g. political formation of Robeson. But that there might be sub-articles or not has no bearing on the structure of this article. Str1977 (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Chronology and Sheila Tully Boyle, Andrew Bun

I have gone over the article and with, I'm sure, some minor or major exceptions, most of it is now in proper historical order of events. Going in or back will be anti-colonialism/human rights, the Mundt-Nixon Bill, the rest of the films, the message to Hollywood about quitting films and the half a dozen documentaries he sang or spoke in a few only recently discovered, concert tours, FBI/CIA/surveillance and other things. I do think a separated art and political section would look terrible as the two for Robeson were intertwined as he was the first major artist/activist.

As for Boyle& Andrew Bun's book, there are numerous mistakes in it and it is not a very extensive survey. I feel it is a staid "Loose Women" Activia ladies commercial style bio. I feel Duberman's chapters are a better template if one is looking. A friend who is a Robeson archivist/editor has offered to check information, check dates and proof read as well.

The one section that should ideally stay in as-is is the health breakdown. PR Jr, has been getting new information each year and it is the one event in Robeson's life that there is so much false and truncated information surrounding and a great deal of interest. Three of Robeson's doctors have now all been identified as CIA contractors since Duberman's bio came out in 1989. One possibility of moving the material is creating an 'African Americans and the CIA" or "AA and MKULTRA" page or something to that effect with James Thornwell http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/29/obituaries/james-r-thornwell-46-dies-sued-army-over-test-of-lsd.html (he needs a page) and few others. Though Robeson's MKULTRA connection has not been proven, his son's exhaustive research could still be included and CIA documents and oddly titled "Status of Health" files are plentiful to reference. Wales and Robeson really should have a separate page. There is so much more to include.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your version is riddled with irrelevant details, personal information about other people and several undue weight and neutrality issues. The MKULTRA etc. is a low point. Instead of concisely stating Robeson Jr.'s view and those of others, it goes on and on and on about And of course, you still misrepresent the sources on religion. Str1977 (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

And your constant mass reversion is disruptive. As far as I can see we had general agreement to Catherine's structure above. If you think things are wrong then deal with them here, or as individual edits which can be properly reviewed. I suggest you list your specific concerns, with diffs and references as a list so I and other editors can go through them in an ordered way. --Snowded TALK 07:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Snowded,
if you sent message to my talk page complaining about this, you are abusing your status.
I am no more mass reverting thant Catherine is. Your assertion that here is general agreement in favour of Catherine's version is ridiculous as the agreement is solely between her and yourself. I have repeatedly explained my edits while Catherine has only attacked my version in a general way. Am I now supposed to go to the trouble she didn't take. Her version is overly detailed, riddled with irrelevant stuff, inherently biased and censoring sourced information. Neutrality is not negotionable. Str1977 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Like any other editor here I don't have any special status to abuse so I am not sure what you are talking about. Four editors are engaged here with you and Catherine heavily involved. The question was raised earlier as to which structure we should adopt and I opined that Catherine's was the most suitable. That was not contested other than by your periodic slow edit war. I also felt that your position on the "Stalin" question was terribly naive, which was the one specific you raised. You are free to raise the question of structure again. If you do then I suggest you are a lot more specific that the very general and sweeping comments you have just made. If you are unhappy with that there there are various dispute resolution means available to you; edit warring is not one of them. --Snowded TALK 08:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was under the impression that "rollback feature" meant admin-ship. My point about sending a warning to me but not to Catherine stands.
It is not true that your assertion was not contested. I posted my objection to her version and my preferece for mine, even if it meant beating my own drum. Two out of four editors is not a general consensus.
I don't see how my position on Stalin was "naive". It is a fact that not a few people saw Stalin for what he was early on. Not if they were confined to a live outside party leadership in the Soviet Union of course, but if they travelled back and forth (as PR did) and, at least potentially, had access to critical information. It didn't come out suddenly in 1956. Str1977 (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
"Naivite on the Stalin question"...The basic problem here seems to be that user C. H. has the most knowledge on Robeson and so thinks she owns all Robeson articles. She also thinks she is always right. Unfortunately, unlike you I guess (and str1977), he/she hasn't got a clue about Communism or Stalinism.--Radh (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA Radh see suggestion below to move this forward --Snowded TALK 08:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Radh. Surely, Catherine has the most knowledge of us all here about Robeson. But IMHO, she doesn't put her knowledge to good use in the light of what WP is all about. When writing outside of WP, she is free to be as POV as she likes, here on WP it is a different matter. There are two basic problems with her writing: she is prone to take her strong views and inject them into the article (hence the repeated praising or damning language and also her mispresenting - after at first totally denying - Robeson's religious views) and a difficulty in separating the notable and relevant wheat from the irrelevant and pointless chaff. I will have a look at the next section in a minute. Str1977 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Generalised personal attacks are a recipe for conflict. Lets agree the structure, then start to tackle the issues one by one. Tit for tat statements by either party will really not help and you are more likely to gain sympathy by not engaging in that way. --Snowded TALK 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
These are neither personal nor attacks. But I agree that it is the issues that need to be tackled. Despite all sidetracking, that has always been my objective. Str1977 (talk) 09:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Well to a new editor on this article they come across that way. I will make exactly the same points to Catherine. Lets get some content work underway and get rid of the personal issues. --Snowded TALK 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to Britain

We need to ensure that an important life course event like moving from the USA to Britain is presented. More broadly, I am hoping that we can get more of a sense about how Robeson fitted into to the international celebrity circuits of the Jazz Age. I can't think of many black artists as prominent as him at the time - Josephine Baker, obviously. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

His main reception was the South Wales Miners, who had also supported him when he could not travel. There was an exhibition in Cardiff at the Welsh National Museum devoted to his life which covered aspects of this. It was the best part of a decade ago but there may be some material --Snowded TALK 08:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
In the 1920s? --Radh (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to draw on Boyle & Bunie for this period, if people agree it's a good source. Chronological, which helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Judith. That is why I have always opted for a division of his entertainment career/life into an early, U.S. and a later U.K. phase. I see no problem with Boyle & Bunie. Str1977 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You might want to check this out. The 1957 trans-atlantic concert he gave to the Welsh Miners is part of socialist legend here and I doubt if any family on the left (which is the majority) does not have a copy of the recording somewhere in their house. The fact that he was allowed to speak in English at the Eisteddfod may not sound significant, but it was a major mark of the respect in which he was, and is held. The industrial socialist south and more conservative welsh speaking north and west are traditionally antagonistic in Wales, but he brought both communities together. The relationship with Wales may be worth a paragraph or two. It started in 1928 when he met a delegation of Welsh Miners on a march to London. Proud Valley is of course another connection--Snowded TALK 09:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, Robeson went to London in the late middle of the 1920s. There converted to socialism/marxism-leninism, reading Marx and Lenin in the original, talking with leading British Labor politicians. About the only interesting thing about Robeson's life for me is the this: Why did he throw away his status in British (and American) society at the hight of his fame, success, earnings?--Radh (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Robeson Jr.'s book puts his politicisation down to association with the Welsh miners, George Bernard Shaw, and the British Labour Party. I don't think it involved throwing away his career - he seemed to be still confidently acting as an international star, ever adding more strings to his bow. Did Pablo Picasso throw away his career by associating himself with the Spanish cause and the Soviets? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I also don't think his increasing activism meant throwing away his career. But some of his views and stances hurt his career and status later one. But not his activism in general, not his stance on the Spanish Civil War (which was common at the time). But IMHO he was too taken in by Communism, seeing many things only threw that lense (at least for some time) - leading to indefensible statements. This in turn made it easy for his enemies, including those who opposed his anti-racist and civil rights stances as well, to make him an isolated figure. Robeson was neither the hapless victim nor was he sole originator of his troubles. But that's just my take. The article has to present events and developments analytically, bit by bit. Str1977 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with your last point. Of course in the 1930s he would not have anticipated McCarthyism, or at least, not the precise form it took. We must avoid anachronism. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Picasso's notoriously awful Korea-war-inspired-painting did ruin his reputation with some people and his "pottery" did the rest to make him a laughing stock in the eyes of the '50s avant-garde. But he had had a fifty-year career by the time he embraced Stalinism, not a five year one. And French post-war cultural life (until the translation of Archipel Gulag and the Vietcong victory in Vietnam) was largely communist. And Picasso produced sellable objects, not performances or songs. --Radh (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The idea that he was "taken in by communism" is a rather POV statement. Remember this is the 1930s, at that time in the UK many people were members of both the communist party and the labour party and communism as an ideology and political practice was not linked with Stalinism, that is much later. --Snowded TALK 12:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The idea that he was "taken in by communism" is a rather POV statement.
Sure, this is why I stated: "But that's just my take." - making the term "POV" pretty much meaningless - in contrast to what the article is about. However, I don't think that the number of British Communists is relevant at all. In 1934, when Robeson visited Russia, Stalinism was firmly established already. But All this talk does little to improve the article, hence I will stop right here. Str1977 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Just look at the Daily Worker report of Robeson's first visit to Russia in 1934. Robeson says: Everybody who dares critize your great country should be shot immediately without any fuss. And Stalinism begins with Stalin's fight against Trotzki - In Germany with the "Bolschewisierung" of the KPD by Thälmann from c.1924.
In Russian for activists within the party yes, but the British context is very different and that is where he was coming from. There was very little awareness of the reality of Stalinism until the Hungarian Revolution (which was probably the last straw) and considerable naivete. Establishment hostility in the US and UK also created an either/or type mentality. We need to be very careful here to place things in their proper context--Snowded TALK 16:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Judith: Robeson was not a major figure of the Jazz age proper or on a circuit, though he is associated on occasion he was only a very casual friend of Josephine Baker. The material you seek is already in the edit with Labor and the transatlantic concert which I'm putting back in. You should be referencing other books alongside Jr's. who has an agenda as a son and who has contradicted himself on key events I am curious, had you ever heard of Robeson before this article to any depth? I HAD ALL OF WALES (past to now) IN THERE AND IT IS GOING BACK IN as I'm still working on the article. Str1977 wanted it mostly removed out of spite for anything positive that Robeson did for whites.

    • "But IMHO he was too taken in by Communism, seeing many things only threw that lense (at least for some time) - leading to indefensible statements."

He was taken in by NOTHING honey. Read his OWN words. You may not agree but his words prove otherwise. Approaching his life with 21st century hindsight with white privilege and a poor background in his life and black US history is what leads to that common pov. Ask yourself why a black man who's breathen is being lynched and who has no civil rights/human rights domestically and worldwide might look elsewhere for answers. Read more about him.

"The article has to present events and developments analytically, bit by bit" Not if it paints him as a "dupe" of the USSR. He was very clear as to how he felt and that HE made his own decisions and had his own believed colored by his experience not a lense. Please! I suggest reading "Here I Stand." His own words and not buying into the myth that black socialists could not think for themselves or that Robeson was an "Uncle Tom for Stalin" ala radh's foul troll comment. None of that trash will stand. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What words of Robeson contradict my purely personal observation, sweetheart? I did not state that he was "duped" (at least not here, not now) but that he was that overwhelmingly persuaded by his reception that he - at least for quite a while - could not see evil done in the Soviet Union as clearly as he did see evil done in the U.S. Hear what I am saying, Catherine! EVIL DONE IN THE U.S. Str1977 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
PS. And I am not speaking from hindsight. (And there's nothing "white" about this - that would be racist.) He could have known enough about Stalin and the Soviet Union (I add it as it is a common misconception to shift all blame to Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were not nice guys at all. And others, contemporary to Robeson, actually saw through all the propaganda or quickly "recovered". Robeson took a little longer (if he ever "recovered" at all) and that was part of his tragedy. Actually, this give me ideas for a Robeson-Othello play. ;-) Str1977 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't suggest he was a friend of Josephine Baker. I suggested that in the 1920s they were probably the best known African American entertainment celebrities (separately). Yes I had heard of him before. I often edit articles on 20th century history - I have some expertise there, but so do plenty of others. Don't shout. Don't impute motives to fellow editors. Expect that on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit you will encounter people who intensely dislike Soviet communism. If it is too stressful working with editors who don't share your outlook there are plenty of other articles you can edit. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Baker was not as remotely as well known as Robeson. Robeson was hero in India, Africa and China and Wales etc etc. By the way, I submitted your comments about how "its ok to call Paul Robeson an Uncle Tom because he's dead" response via Radh and Str1977 along with the whole comment saga to a Black history professor at University in California and he was appalled. You may be happy on other articles yourself.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you cared so much about the "Uncle Tom" comment, that you actually raised it through Wikipedia procedures. Not. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Both, please stop it. Lets focus on content shall we? --Snowded TALK 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Snowded. Are we going to work from Str's version or from Catherine's? I can work from either but I don't want to see my work lost in a revert war. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Catherine has it right on the sequencing. --Snowded TALK 18:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It is essential that Robeson being erased via omissions from US history books is shown clearly and even the BBC when they recently covered Peekskill and omitted him entirely. I am still adding back in HUAC, Mundt-Nixon Bill, move to Britain/plant in the sun production/British labour, concert at St.Pancras townhall.

"could not see evil done in the Soviet Union as clearly as he did see evil done in the U.S. Hear what I am saying, Catherine! EVIL DONE IN THE U.S.: Str1977, that's not for you decide or be the morality police and point out. He could want peace and friendship with the USSR and at the same time he could still support in civil rights and liberties in the US as dsoens of others did without such foul repression and persecution. Get out of this 21st century white perspective. Live like a black man in his era and see where your options lay. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My version clearly also notes all the erasure (I use that term for sake of brevity) save the BBC. Sure, this also stems from Robeson's earasure but it is not part of the actual erasure but merely a recent consequence of it (like the 75% of students ignorant of Robeson). The omission is more relevant to the BBC than to Robeson - how stupid can one get and omit the one giving the concert when talking about concert riots. But you're not suggesting that the BBC is actively anti-Communist or racist, are you?
Re: "Evil done in the U.S." Obviously you can only find fault with anything I say. Either you claim I belittle Robeson's or African American's troubles or I am playing morality police. I never criticised Robeson for wanting peace in the world or justice at home - I may very well criticise him for taking a naive stance on a totalitarian, murderous regime and for supporting several of its sattelites. Yes, dozens others supported peace and justice without receiving the same treatment ... did you ever wonder why? What did MLK do differently that he had both better (at first and in his being remembered) and worse (in his assassination)?
This all has nothing to do with hindsight. Mid-20th century black men (some noted in the article) were not as naive as Robeson was in this regard. And they had the same options as he did. Stop patronising this great man beyond his grave. Let him take his stand with all the good and the bad he has done.
PS. And I can live as a 20th century black man as much as you can.
Str1977 (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with Snowded and Catherine as for which version to use. I am hesistant to bang my own drum but I guess I must: My version already is chronologically sound and hasn't yet to get there. Furthermore, my version contains all the information included in Catherine's save 20 minutes of applause and a minutae from birthday celebrations. Plus more facts that Catherine's doesn't have - including Robeson's religious views she is trying to sweep under the carpet. To speak nothing about neutrality. Str1977 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Str, His life his so long and varied that the dates add clarity. your edit does not note Robeson as a civil rights pioneer nor do you connect his blacklisting to his anti-imperialism and anti lynching activism. Remember, the USSR/CP was NOT cited by the state department when his passport was lifted but anti-imperialism and civil right activism was-clearly. More religious stuff could go in but I think Hoggard's quote adds balance and brevity as Robeson did not live an adult life attending church services and he changed religious terms in songs to be secular many times. I think comparisons of conflicting accounts of his politics is more important eg: Hungary and Ebloc stances.

He was NOT "naive" , that is a pov. The CPUSA were the only group defending blacks and actually most poor immigrants for years in the US. Read MF Jacobson's "whiteness of a different color." Read Robeson's own words and put yourself in that era and in his place. He was active, not wanting to sit and wait as blacks were supposed to. As for the USSR, as I've stated the US and western Europe committed/is committing ethnic cleansing/coups/rape of resources on a mass scale as well-none are absolved of evil. Robeson never claimed to be an Amnesty International figure nor did he live, pay taxes in or vote in the USSR. NOR was he a CP member. No record ever. He had his views and hopes for socialism in poor/occupied countries. He never tried to overthrow the USA or was a spy. How much he saw and he felt about it can only be determined by his own words and the varying accounts of historians and his son. I think Duberman perhaps gives the best assessment but it is still a narrative biography and now two decades old post Glasnost. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe he was naive (actually, the estimation more friendly to Robeson than the alternative) and yes, that's a POV. The difference is that I don't sneak it into the article. Nowhere in my version does the article make such an assertion - it just reports what happens and how published, reliable sources interpreteted it. All the rest of your assertions have been discussed time and again. I am tired of this. Most importantly, my views are not important to the article and neither are yours (well, in fact, they are since you have authored one of the linked refs, which undoubtedly you yourself have put there.) - what is relevant are the reliable sources, of which Duberman and Robeson Jr. are of primary importance. We should stick to them, not to your dogmatic (and less important) assertions about party membership. Str1977 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Does it say Catherine Huebscher anywhere? There is no other name that I am addressed by on here or that is mentioned on my talk page. So are you too now stalking me as Radh is? I warn you, do not stalk me or take this offline as I will phone the police in the UK or in the states. Just stick to the article.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not stalking you. Simply having a look at your blog is not stalking. You are real belittling stalking victims (a friend of mine happened to be one) with your reactions. You have nothing to fear from me. Still, it doesn't matter much if it is only one article but there are rules on WP about conflict of interest. Str1977 (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I am laughing so much it hurts: the p-c warrior runs to the racist police - watchdog of filthy capitalist society! This user yesterday has also posted-erased the message "stop stalking me you freak" on my talk page. It gets sillier and sillier by the minute.--Radh (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Catherine, mind WP:NPA (and "fr..." and "st..." are personal attacks) and also WP:LEGAL. Rest assured, you have no case nor will this get you anywhere. Str1977 (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you and Radh are not staying emotionally balanced. Stick to the article please.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Catherine, mind WP:NPA - this means "NO personal attacks". What I wrote above was not "sticking to the article" on your part. Please do so now! Str1977 (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)