Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Strange citation

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

To protect the Soviet Union's reputation,[203] and to keep the right wing of the United States from gaining the moral high ground, Robeson denied that any persecution existed in the Soviet Union,[204] and kept the meeting secret for the rest of his life, except from his son.

The last sentence is sourced to Seton (1958). I don't have access to that book. However, the fact is that Robeson lived until 1976. Did Robeson Jr reveal the secret to Seton as early as 1958, while his father was still alive, and Robeson Jr himself was still a member of the Communist Party and would be for four more years? I sort of doubt that the citation is correct. Wherever and whenever Robeson Jr's revelations were first published, I find it unlikely that it was in Seton (1958). --94.155.68.202 (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I also don't have access to the book, though I remember the claim that he confided his doubts to his son from a documentary (not a cite of course). You're correct that this is very unlikely/impossible to have been first included in a book written while PR was still alive. One possibility is that there were post 1958 'updates' of this book. I can only hope that someone has access to the book or to another citation for this claim. Pincrete (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have the Marie Seton biography, which was published in London. I do have the other source cited in that sentence, Martin Duberman's biography, which is also available at Google Books. The pages cited, pp. 353–354, support the sentence. Start with the last paragraph on p. 353 ("Having made that public gesture") and read the first paragraph and a half on following page. See also what Duberman wrote about Robeson's reaction to Kruschev's denunciation of Stalin's crimes (pp. 416ff.). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Duberman is cited as support for Robeson's denying that persecution existed in the USSR; that is hardly a problem anyway, since it's a matter of public record (well, strictly speaking, the source quotes him as denying anti-Semitic persecution, but whatever). Seton, on the other hand, is cited as support for the speculation about Robeson's motives to remain silent (this speculation could, indeed, be sourced to Duberman instead), and for the claim that he told the story about his meeting with Feffer to his son and only to him. Duberman does retell the same story, but he doesn't mention PR Jr in the text (I can't see what source he cites for the story, because the Google Books preview doesn't include the page with the endnotes). The question remains when and to whom PR Jr told the story, if indeed he was the only one to have heard it. Whatever the facts of the matter, the claim should be sourced correctly, and it almost certainly isn't at present.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Duberman page given (353) also supports that PR later told Jr about the meeting and pledged Jr to secrecy during PR's life. The only thing it does not support is that PR told no one except Jr. Unfortunately I can't read p354. I wonder if it makes sense to rephrase and re-cite, the "except Jr" element doesn't seem significant, it's obvious from context that this was 'private info'. Pincrete (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

American Communists category

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

There seem to be right-wing trolls trying to whitewash his legacy and claiming that there's no sources to verify his political views. He should certainly be included in this category. Stop trying to sanitize him. Conservatives do the same thing to Martin Luther King, and it's infuriating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:Categorization#Articles:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

Is there verifiable information in this article that Robeson was a communist? No. Therefore, the article does not belong in Category:American communists. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of verifiable information that he was a communist. Look anywhere. You think Robeson was a right-wing anti-communist? Do your research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2WInElm0Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Errrrr the choice is not between being 'a communist' and being a 'a right-wing anti-communist'! There are dozens of political positions in between, Robeson never joined any communist organisation, never described himself as a communist and no historian or biographer has described him as a communist .... therefore he wasn't a communist. Some of his opponents and detractors within the US did their best to characterise him as a communist, but being accused of something doesn't mean you are it ... especially since at the time HUAC tried to characterise Charlie Chaplin and almost anyone with even slightly left-wing sympathies as 'communists'. Needless to say, a teenager posting his opinions on YouTube, isn't a WP:RS for our purposes! Have a good day! Pincrete (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You act like being a communist is a bad thing. Indicative of the failed public school system in the US. You right-wing trolls are the worst. Always trying to whitewash great radical Black leaders. MLK, Malcolm X, Paul Robeson, and so on, are constantly whitewashed and sanitized to appear safe for the lily-white suburbanite conservatives. Utterly shameful. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-paul-robeson-said-77742433/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to that article. Robeson never made a secret of his admiration for the Soviet Union and its leaders, and I believe he continued to defend Stalin even after Khrushchev denounced him. However, as I wrote earlier, there are no reliable sources that say Robeson was a communist, so he doesn't belong in the category. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

What more evidence does one need to prove he was a communist? There's no direct quote of him saying "I'm a communist," so that means he's not a communist? That's like saying I'm not a vegetarian even though I never eat meat, because I never uttered the phrase "I am a vegetarian." Anti-communist revisionists, please do your research. Here are Paul Robeson's own words: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/biographies/1953/04/x01.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not rocket science. The "evidence" we need is one or more reliable sources that say Robeson was a communist. Not insinuation that he was a communist, or was likely a communist, or liked to hang out with or praise communists. That he himself was a communist. Without any such sources, the article does not belong in the category.

By the way, this isn't just a matter that affects Paul Robeson and this article. The guideline I cited above applies to every article on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think that simply praising the USSR and even Stalin 'proves' someone is a communist - you'd have to conclude that Roosevelt and Churchill were communists too - which both did throughout WWII! If I think that Castro has been better for Cuba than the regime that preceded him and should not be 'demonised', does that automatically mean I'm a communist? Does it mean that I think communist measures like 'collective ownership' are the right solution for all counties, or even for my own country? Of course not, it simply means I think that Castro is not as bad as he is sometimes painted.

People who have spent years examining Robeson's writings and speech and interviewing those close to him have concluded he wasn't a communist. Yes, he was more sympathetic to USSR and other causes than was good for his health (and career) in 1950's America, but there is no evidence that he was ever a communist (ie someone who believes in and advocates that system of govt). Excuse me for saying this, but you are adopting the crude logic of the 1950s detractors of Robeson (ie everyone who doesn't think USSR is an evil empire and everyone who doesn't think that communism is a pernicious and dangerous ideological 'disease', must automatically be a communist!).

The bottom line however is that if reliable historians and biographers have concluded that Robeson was not a communist, then for WP purposes, he wasn't! The vegetarian analogy doesn't work, because one definition of vegetarian is a non-meat-eater. There is no accepted definition of 'communist' that says it's someone who has sometimes said supportive things about a particular communist country of leader. Pincrete (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You're the one being a crude detractor of Paul Robeson. He was a civil rights legend, and one of the greatest human beings of the 20th century. The fact that he was a great communist only adds to his legacy in a positive way. You have this 1950's Joseph McCarthy-esque view of communism where it's somehow a bad thing. What does someone have to do to prove they're a communist to you? Is Castro a communist in your eyes? Stalin? Mandela? Mao? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. There is no value judgment involved, and this has nothing to do with Paul Robeson or communism. The same rules apply to Category:American humanitarians and Category:American murderers. If reliable sources don't support the addition of an article to a category, it doesn't go into the category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Errrr "What does someone have to do to prove they're a communist to you?" They have to be described by historians or biographers as having communist beliefs! Simple as that. It doesn't matter tuppence whether you or I think being a communist is synonymous with being a hero or a traitor (I don't think either as it happens). It would not have been very surprising if Robeson had been a communist, since many 'socially minded' US and Europeans were attracted to communism in the 30's/40's. It just so happens that Robeson wasn't one of them. Citing some friendly things that Robeson said about USSR is no more rational proof of him being a communist than thinking that if I say some complimentary things about the present Pope, I must be a catholic! I agree that Robeson was both a great human being and a great artist, who paid a high price for maintaining his dignity and beliefs, but it just so happens that he wasn't a communist. Pincrete (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand completely what's going on here. Historical revisionism by anti-communists who refuse to acknowledge facts. How many historians and biographers have to confirm Paul Robeson's politics for it to be good enough for you? This is the kind of nonsense that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Do you know anything at all about Paul Robeson? What were his political beliefs according to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.212.66 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111105084558/http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/LIST11.pdf to http://www.cr.nps.gov/nhl/designations/Lists/LIST11.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ostensibly?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Malik, I know nothing about the incident described here, but I wonder whether 'ostensibly' is what is meant (near the end of the edit).

The dictionary says "if something is ostensibly true, people say that it is true but it is not really true" giving 'supposedly' as a synonym. The implication is that the passport refusal would seem to, but not actually, damage his recovery. If that is the actual case (ie possibly they were worried about appearing to be the bad guys), I wonder if another wording would be clearer. Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You're right; that was the wrong word. I think Ami du peuple fixed the issue with the next edit. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Social Injustices?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"He became politically involved in response to the Spanish Civil War, fascism, and social injustices." Who wrote this shit? 173.19.112.166 (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this is poorly stated. I have posted a stylistic revision of the first paragraph. I don't think any of the information there is problematic, but if other editors find fault, please suggest appropriate rewording. Thank you. Ami du peuple (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Article needs a Discography

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone add a Discography to this article? (This seems like a major omission.) Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a very difficult task unless somebody has published such a discography, in which case reproducing it here might be copyright violation.

Many of Robeson's records were recorded in the era before "record albums"—78 rpm was standard and listeners got one song on each side of a record. In recent decades, his recordings have been assembled in countless compilations, some of dubious quality, many of which overlap one another in song selection. I did add an "external link" to Robeson's bio and discography at AllMusic. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes concerning Robeson's breakdown

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Recently, Ami du peuple has tried twice to rewrite the section of this article article about Robeson's breakdown to delete or minimize what biographers and historians have written in favor of what his son wrote in a biography of his father. While I believe Paul Robeson Jr. did his best to write accurately and dispassionately about the events, I still question the substitution of a son's account, complete with its conspiracy theories, for a version based on what uninvolved biographers have written.

Was Robeson's breakdown suspicious? chemically induced? caused by the CIA or the KGB? Quite possibly any or all of the above. But outside of Paul Jr.'s account, there are no reliable sources that describe those possibilities as likely. Yes, Duberman was unable to obtain the complete dossiers that the U.S. and Soviet governments have on Robeson—and that's probably a good thing, because he likely would have needed several warehouses to store them—but so what? No biographer has complete access to every potential source. Historians and biographers work with the sources available to them, and one day additional sources may come to light that change our thinking about the past. Nevertheless, we don't write encyclopedia articles about, for example, the Kennedy assassination based on what might be in a secret file somewhere. We depend on what reliable sources have written, not about the absence of evidence to disprove a conspiracy theory. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Response

We discussed some of these changes earlier, and I agreed to make a more cautious revision in the light of your comments. I am a little surprised that you have reverted all these latest changes in your edit of 24 March, as I believe these changes help to improve the quality and accuracy of this part of the article and fall within the accepted editorial guidelines regarding discussion of fact and opinion in secondary sources. In the interests of transparency and an effort to reach some consensus here, I have written detailed comments on all of the changes I am suggesting and am posting these on the Robeson Talk page. To draw attention to his discussion, I will also redo the revision to the first sentence of this section.

REVERT ONE

Back in London, he planned his return to the United States to participate in the civil rights movement, stopping off in Africa and Cuba along the way. Essie argued to stay in London, fearing that he'd be "killed" if he returned and would be "unable to make any money" due to harassment by the United States government. Robeson disagreed and made his own travel arrangements, arriving in Moscow in March 1961.[259]

Why did I change this? First, I thought “decided to return” was more accurate, as he was still clarifying his intentions and the planning was ad hoc. Second, I wrote “where he hoped to resume his participation” in the civil rights movement. There are two elements here. One is the hopefulness, which came from his sense of isolation from the mainstream of the civil rights movement, where his presence was not entirely welcome at this time; and the other is the important point that he wanted to “resume” participation – there is no question that he was an established figure in the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1940s on many issues, such as armed forces integration and anti-lynching, to name only two obvious campaigns in which he was active.

The second sentence in the revision stated that he would travel to Moscow, and then to Ghana and Guinea and Cuba, before returning. This could be shorter, but the point is that he wanted to visit those two countries in Africa in particular because they were newly independent and he had known some of the leaders when they were students. And obviously he had to travel a circuitous route to reach Cuba since he could not go there directly from the U.S.

In the remainder of the paragraph, I changed “to stay” to “in favour of staying” and changed “he’d be ‘killed’” to “he would be killed”. Both seemed to be more appropriate formal language. The only other change was to reference the information to the right source. The existing footnote (259) is to the right page but in the wrong book, which does not cover this period in his life.

REVERT TWO

During an uncharacteristically wild party in his Moscow hotel room, Robeson locked himself in his bedroom and attempted suicide by cutting his wrists.[260]Three days later, under Soviet medical care, he told his son that he felt extreme paranoia, thought that the walls of the room were moving and, overcome by a powerful sense of emptiness and depression, tried to take his own life.[261]

In this paragraph, I changed “his bedroom” to “an inner room”. Some sources say bedroom and others say bathroom (Duberman actually says “bathroom”, despite the attribution of this sentence to him). No need to settle this, as he may have moved around during the night after leaving the loud partying group.

I favoured replacing the next sentence for several reasons. One is that the source is weak – a specialized book about Robeson’s film career, which was long over by this time. This makes it a very secondary source and a less reliable source than the account in Duberman, who is the authoritative biographer. Accordingly, using Duberman, I quoted from the diagnosis and prescription given at the time. I think this is the closest evidence available as to his condition. I expanded on this by referencing his son, who was on the scene shortly after the breakdown, and, along with Eslanda, was counselled by doctors regarding the inadvisability of electroconvulsive therapy and the recommendation that Paul Sr. take retirement. I think this is better evidence than the description from Nollen, which is only about symptoms, not the diagnosis.

REVERT THREE

Paul Jr. believed that his father's health problems stemmed from attempts by the CIA and MI5 to "neutralize" his father.[262][263] He remembered that his father had had such fears prior to his prostate operation.[264] He said that three doctors treating Robeson in London and New York had been CIA contractors,[262] and that his father's symptoms resulted from being "subjected to mind depatterning under MKULTRA", a secret CIA programme.[265]Martin Duberman wrote that Robeson's health breakdown was probably brought on by a combination of factors including extreme emotional and physical stress, bipolar depression, exhaustion and the beginning of circulatory and heart problems. "[E]ven without an organic predisposition and accumulated pressures of government harassment he might have been susceptible to a breakdown."[266]

In this paragraph I started out by changing “believed” to “came to believe”, which is to make the point that Robeson Jr. did not have this belief at the time of the events in 1961 but formed the view later. The same applies to his own breakdown and hospitalization that year during the same visit, which he could not explain at the time. This is accepted by Duberman as a necessary part of the narrative, as it is a known fact that Robeson Jr. had these views and this helps explain the paranoia that both he and his father manifested. Whatever one thinks of the allegations. his is clearly attributed as relevant opinion rather than established fact.

I took out the part about doctors in London and New York being CIA contractors. This elaboration is not necessary, as the point was already made and those who wish to pursue the theme have references right there to do so.

I then went down to the second half of the paragraph, where Duberman’s assessment of the Robeson Jr. claims is discussed. I introduced this with a strong transition that sets Duberman’s assessment off from the claims themselves, by stating “After considering these claims and failing to gain full access to classified documents”. I think this establishes that Duberman was not able to verify the charges, and I agreed with the paraphrase from Duberman to the effect that there were multiple causes for Robeson’s collapse. This time, I also went back and checked the quotation from Duberman which is given at the end of the paragraph. I had assumed this would be correctly quoted, but I found that it was not accurate and jumbled in a way that misrepresents Duberman’s actual comment, which in the interests of accuracy should be correctly quoted here instead: He also added that "without the accumulated pressures of government harassment and worldly disappointments, any underlying depressive tendency might never have become manifest.”

Ami du peuple (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This is basically a dispute over whether a son's biography of his father, and his unique claims of outside interference that led to his father's breakdown, are superior to well researched biographies by outsiders. While a son is entitled to his own view of his father, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that (at its best) tries to maintain neutrality by using secondary sources. I recommend that you read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (and its supplement, WP:Identifying and using primary sources). In general, Paul Robeson Jr.'s biography is a hybrid of primary and secondary sources, but when he writes of events that he witnessed and that were not well reported—such as his father's breakdown—I think we have to treat it as a primary source. That doesn't mean we twist Duberman to make him agree (or at least not disagree) with the wildest of Robeson's conspiracy theories. It means we treat Duberman as the better account. If you disagree, I recommend we use WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask other editors their opinions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this because I know nothing about the incident, and cannot access the biographies. However, I agree with Mailik's analysis above of the WP policy position (whether a son's biography of his father, and his unique claims … … are superior to well researched biographies by outsiders). The only aternative to some kind of RSN or other dispute process, is the possibility of putting the more 'official' position first, and then putting Jr's claims briefly - where they disagree. That is dependent on you both agreeing that Jr's claims are of sufficient interest/value (WP:WEIGHT) for them to be included. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we are going off course here. I have reviewed the policies on Reliable Sources at WP:Identifying reliable sources. I have always agreed that Duberman is the authoritative source and do not think the son's biography should take precedence. Also, I think Malik agrees with me that the passage as it currently stands is flawed. Malik's objections actually seem to be mainly to less reliable material that was already there before I attempted to improve the passage. There is a simple solution, which is to rewrite the passage by relying entirely on Duberman and editing out the unnecessarily detailed and controversial material from other sources. My only caveat here is that we should include the fact that Robeson Jr. offers a different viewpoint; as the policy statement notes, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". Additionally, as the policy statement says, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount", so I do not see how there can be an objection to correcting the misquotation from Duberman. Does this make sense, or do we need to refer for further opinion? Ami du peuple (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one that wrote/edited almost the entire article before his "breakdown". After my approximate two years of research, I discovered that it was too difficult for me, as a new wikipedia user, to enter past his "breakdown". So, I stopped editing the article. I am dispassionate about Paul Robeson but I would like to "finish" the article, with the caveat that there is no such thing as a finished wikipedia article.

Now, even know 5 - 9 years after editing the article, I know nothing about wikipedia rules or guidelines. I am not willing to begin my research until after May of 2021.

I understand the frustration and the contentiousness of editing his later stages of his life; it is just extremely difficult editing. 66.234.58.130 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)