Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 1

Communist Party Member?

Was Robeson EVER a member of the Communist Party? Paul Robeson Jr. denies that he ever was, and I am not aware of any evidence indicating that he was. Attention to detail matters; the fact that Robeson had many communist friends does not necessarily make him a communist himself. This was the essence of Robeson's battle to win back his passport.

Was Robeson denied a passport? in the UK you are entitled to a passport if you are a citizen by birth or naturalisation. It can be temporarily surrendered by a person on bail for a criminal offence, but not permanently withdrawn.

Is US law different?; it seems unlikely in a democracy that a person's basic right to travel can be annulled by government fiat without any criminal conviction. jimfbleak 12:33 20 May 2003 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? That was a bad time in US history. Vicki Rosenzweig

It's STILL illegal for foreign-born anarchists to enter the US, or so I hear. Any time a democracy feels threatened you can watch 'basic rights' go down the tube.

• • PR passport was revoked. However, he filed a lawsuit to reinstate it and eventually the US Supreme Court "ruled that a citizen’s right to travel could not be taken away without due process and Robeson’ passport was returned."

(http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6440/)

There were many Americans on the Left who dismissed indications of Stalin's real nature as U.S. Cold War propoganda. In the post-war years, for example, they convinced themselves that those who were silenced or sent to Siberia had been saboteurs and/or agents of the Nazis.

What American communists supported was certainly not purges of a bloody dictator's real and imagined enemies but what they believed the Soviet Union represented: an end to racism; health care, affordable housing, nourishing food, and free education for all; and a society in which those who do the work make the decisions. In classical communism, the state is supposed to wither away, not grow every stronger and more invasive into the private lives of the citizens.

The objective of the article is to highlight Mr. Robeson's life and career in encyclopedic format. One of the best ways to do this is to highlight the aspects of his life that were central or important to him in a way that does not slander him. Many aspects of his activism have been noted but one major one has been thus far ignored: the association with the Marxist/Leninist school of thought. I think that the opening vignette of a conversation or article about Paul Robeson that ignores his sympathies for the Soviet Union and its system would be as incomplete as an the opening vignette of an article about Muhammad Ali that ignores his devotion to Islam. Therefore, I have added the title "Communist Sympathizer" in the first paragraph accordingly. This adjective phrase is neither slanderous nor does it unduly label him a "Communist" but rather highlights this aspect of his life that many, including the sources cited below, would maintain is CENTRAL to his life. --71.211.171.182 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He may not have been a card carrying member of the Communist Party, but he sure seemed to go out of his way to offer support and sympathies to the Soviet Union, Communism, Socialism, and even Stalin himself. Robeson himself would probably even agree with the phrase describing him as a Communist sympathizer. --Tbkflav 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lede should mention Robeson's support of the Soviet Union, but the problem is the phrase "Communist sympathiser" — and its slanderous link to "Communist." Robeson was a supporter of the Soviet Union, but there is no indication that he supported Communism, socialism, or Marxism. Let's try to come up with a phrase that describes known facts about his politics, not speculation. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash

This worshipful article glosses over Robeson's Communism and does a disservice to the truth.

Response: Communists were doing more to fight the colonialist explotaion of people of color than the right wing of the US and Europe which were exploiting them through the 4 Point Plan and countless other commercial and legally sanctioned routes to death . I've lectured to many Jewish Community groups about Paul Robeson and his views on the Soviet Union and not one person has ever misunderstood his intentions. Stalin was a friend of the US and a life cover subject during the war. Do not blame Paul Robeson for siding with the lesser of two evils as you have not even the semblance of his knowledge and education and have never lived as a black man in a racist society. I suggest you read his bio and than put yourself in his shoes.

lesser of two evils? this is wikipedia noob noone cairs which is more evil we want the facts dam it, this ain't about makein some dude look like a hero and lets BE honest those good old russians with their shareing careing ways ain't no lesser of two evils, usa suxs d00d:P I've lectured to many Jewish Community groups about Paul Robeson and ALL OF THEM apart from two which proble were only pretending to be jewish for the simpathy anyway they all said that he blatently did burn down Lassiters and dumping lyn scully on their hunnymoon was well wrong. basicly their will be no whitewash at the white house, all these pinko's will be found out.

Untruths and POV statements

I dispute the statement that the Communist Party "was known to be actively involved in espionage against the United States".

I dispute the statement that the Communist Party and/or Paul Robeson "enthusiastically supported the 1940 Smith Act".

Where did you get your "information" on Feffer? --Jose Ramos 09:27, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

where did I get my informaton from:

The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin

Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin, John Barron

In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage, John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr

The Secret World of American Communism (Annals of Communism Series) by Harvey Klehr

Stalin's Secret Pogrom: The Postwar Inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee by Joshua Rubenstein

Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr

It is also important to point out that unlike some screeds, the material in these books are backed up by literaly thousands of documents from the KGB, former Soviet and Eastern European nations as well as itmes obtained through FOIA inquiries at the CIA. TDC 14:28, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The CPUSA offcialy supported the 1940 Smith Act, until it was used on them. TDC 14:36, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your allegation does not make it true. --Jose Ramos 03:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My allegations do not make it true? And what do I have to do to prove it to you, give you the page number where they quote from?

On Robeson and the Smith Act: Paul Robeson: A Flawed Martyr, Barry Fing[from New Politics, vol. 7, no. 1 (new series), whole no. 25, Summer 1998]

I read with interest the article you cited by Mr. Finger [not Fing]. It is easily found on the Internet. It turns out that the article is a political diatribe which offers no evidence for its broad allegations of evil-doing by Communists and by Paul Robeson. These allegations are made by one with an obvious political axe to grind.

Not only do your allegations not go beyond allegations, so Finger's allegations do not go beyond allegations.

You have used someone with a clear and powerful bias to introduce undocumented, pointedly POV statements into this article. You should be ashamed. --Jose Ramos 09:04, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

TDC, you have stopped discussing, and are just stubbornly reverting.

I maintain that you cannot substantiate your Smith Act allegations by simply quoting a journal of political opinion, that itself does not document its allegations. --Jose Ramos 05:28, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--

I'm leaving the following line alone, recognizing TDC's effort to rewrite it to be more neutral, but its still not up to par. It needs some description to explain how he supposedly betrayed the friend, and it needs somebody besides Wikipedia saying it was a betrayal.

Robeson's betrayal of friend and poet Itzik Feffer is one of the  sharpest 
 examples of the lengths he would go to to defend Stalin's Soviet Union. 

Overall, the criticisms of Robeson as a communist are relevant, but they do need to be sufficiently attributed so that that we understand the political motivations of his accusers.

In the paragraph that starts "As a member of the CPUSA,..." we need something by way of introduction to clarify that his position conflicted with the agenda of the Party. The paragraph explains it, but the context makes it hard to figure out what side he is on, so an introduction such as ... "Though he was a member of the CPUSA, he sometimes took issue with their agenda."

Some others - his "status" as a victim would more accurately be stated his "portrayal" as a victim.

"On his frequent trips...." just runs on and on with too many ands and then there are more ands connecting about five sentences and it is too long and it is hard to read and it needs to be broken into shorter sentences.

I could make these changes, but its better I let you writers already working on this nurse your own baby. DontMessWithThis 15:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a member of the CPUSA, Robeson enthusiastically supported the 1940 Smith Act which made it an offence under which members of organizations that advocated the violent overthrow of the government could be prosecuted. The Party saw the Act as a means of using WWII as an excuse to legally persecute Trotskyists. While addressing a convention of the Civil Rights Conference Robeson rejected an appeal by a Trotskyist who feared he would lose his government pension, saying that “Trotskyists are no better than fascists and Klansmen ....... and not deserving of any rights”.

This paragraph is the subject of an edit war. Personally, I don't know one way or the other what the truth is, but it would be nice if someone sourced this info since it is so obviously contentious. The latest revert offered The Secret World of American Communism as the source, but I looked at this book via www.netlibrary.com. It doesn't mention Robeson in the index or glossary and a full text search doesn't turn up his name either. Additionally, the Smith Act only appears briefly on 4 pages scattered through the book. Gamaliel 23:02, 20 Mar my hump 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about Robeson but it is a historical fact that the CPUSA applauded the use of the Smith Act against Trotskyists. Not only was this completely unprincipled class betrayal, it was myopic as it made it much easier for the US to use the Act against the CPUSA when the time came.

In 1948 Hall and 11 other CP leaders were tried under the notorious Smith Act, which made “conspiracy” to advocate the overthrow of the government by “force and violence” a felony. Convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, Hall jumped bail in 1951, while the verdict was being appealed. Apprehended within a few months, his jail term was lengthened to eight years, which he served at the Federal Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. [1]

Despite the obvious strengths of the Communist movement, there were numerous handicaps. The frequent zigzagging in political line, with equal ferocity brought to instantly changing positions, had sapped its intellectual credibility. The near-fanatical attachment to wartime national unity seemed all too characteristic of past adaptations Across a wide spectrum of efforts, the Party paid a heavy price, as Popular Front organizations (e.g., the Congress of Spanish Speaking Peoples) that had been created under difficult conditions were now suddenly abandoned or dissolved. In like manner, Communist insistence upon the no-strike pledge in war industries and other curbs on militancy, while not universally applied, nevertheless created hostility among some of the most militant industrial workers. Support of the Smith Act usage against Trotskyists and support of the confinement of Japanese Americans raised serious doubts about Communist commitments to civil liberties.Encylopedia of the American Left

Interestingly, the original Smith Act trials had the full support of the CPUSA, because it was first applied to a group of Trotskyists opposed to the U.S. role in World War II. Blacklisting Hollyood's Communists

AndyL 00:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Smith Act Source

As a member of the CPUSA, Robeson enthusiastically supported the 1940 Smith Act which made it an offence under which members of organizations that advocated the violent overthrow of the government could be prosecuted. While addressing a convention of the Civil Rights Conference Robeson rejected an appeal by a Trotskyist who feared he would lose his government pension, saying that Trotskyists were no better than fascists and Klansmen and not deserving of any rights”.

"The Case of the Legless Veteran," Dissent, Winter 1986 Harvey Klehr

Hi, Thanks for providing your source. However, I could only find a book called "The Case of the Legless Veteran" from Pathfinder Press, a Trotskyist Publishing company, by an author called James Kutcher. Could you provide more details about the source you are citing? --Mista-X 17:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I assume he is referring to the journal Dissent, which is online but only has web archives back to the 1990s. You can find back issues at a decent university archive, though I suspect the article says something very different than what the paragraph does, if it mentions Robeson or the Smith Act at all. Gamaliel 17:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well then go to a "decent university" and look it up little man. Thankfully my public library has a quite complete archive on CD-ROM. TDC 17:07, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 17:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see quit complaining about my edits because you dont have acess to my sources. TDC 17:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

       >>>>>wow aren't 
        >>>>     you so cool, you and your super sorces. big fat lies that what it is you ain't got no secret files you just nothing man nothing.

Actually, I do, and I will be checking your citation at my earliest opportunity. Gamaliel 17:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Professor Klehr to see if he is willing to clarify the paragraph, and will post if and when he responds. --Mista-X 17:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The Encyclopedia of the American Left written by Paul Buhle and Dan Georgakas does mention Smith Act support from CPUSA:

"Support of the Smith Act usage against Trotskyists and support of the confinement of Japanese Americans raised serious doubts about Communist commitments to civil liberties."

The CPUSA FAQ only talks about how they were persecuted under the act.

From Answer.com:

"Throughout the rest of World War II, the CPUSA went from pursuing a policy of militant, if sometimes bureaucratic trade unionism to opposing strike actions at all costs. The leadership of the CPUSA was among the most patriotic elements during these years, advocating social peace, supporting the prosecution of leaders of the Socialist Workers Party under the newly enacted Smith Act, and opposing A. Philip Randolph's efforts to organize a March on Washington to dramatize black workers' demands for equal treatment on the job."

I persynally don't doubt that the CPUSA support the Smith Act's use against it's enemies, but I am not sure they lent it support in totality. For example, I like seeing the Security Certificate being used against Neo-Nazis such as Ernst Zundel, but don't support the security certificate in principle. I would like to see what CPUSA's official position on the Smith Act was and what they have to say about it now.

However, I have a hard time believing that Robeson actually said "Trotskyists were no better than fascists and Klansmen and not deserving of any rights". I would like to know who witnessed and heard this, and the date of this conference he supposedly attended. Mista-X 18:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be true that CPUSA supported the Smith Act against Trotskyists and asked Japanese Americans to comply with the Government.

I got the following information from a leftist source:

see, "Highlights of a Fighting History, " from Int'l. Publishers,

published in the 80's, if memory serves, for CPUSA docs and articles

from Political Affairs.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Smith+Act+trotskyists+cpusa

> ...The Smith Act was passed in 1940. When the Trotskyists of the

Socialist Workers Party became the first Smith Act defendants in 1941,

Hall and the rest of the Stalinists applauded their prosecution and

conviction. When the same law was turned against the Stalinists, the

American Trotskyists took a principled position. Without minimizing

its fundamental and unbridgeable political differences with the

Stalinists, the Socialist Workers Party denounced the persecution of

the CP as an attack on the democratic rights of the working class, and

defended the CP leaders.

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1999m04/msg01223.htm

American Communism and Anticommunism:

A Historian's Bibliography and Guide to the Literature

http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page94.html#az2

http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue25/finger25.htm

> ...When the Smith Act, the predecessor of McCarthyism, was enacted by

Congress and signed by Roosevelt, its first victims were leading

members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and of Minneapolis

Teamsters local 544, eighteen of whom were convicted. This was in

1941, when Russia and America were wartime allies. Convinced that the

18 were convicted for their views and not for any illegal acts, the

labor and liberal movements rallied to their cause in large numbers,

again without regard for their political differences with Trotskyism.

The Communists also rallied in unions and arenas where they could gain

a hearing throughout the country. What made their intervention so

singularly notorious however is that they rallied tirelessly to

isolate and discredit the supporters of the indicted socialist

unionists, regretting only that the sentences were not harsher.

When a few years later it was the Stalinists who were persecuted by

the same provisions of the Smith Act, a Conference to Defend the Bill

of Rights was hastily convened in July of 1949, largely under

Stalinist initiative, to solidify a defense movement. In preparation,

the Daily Worker printed an editorial warning in advance that the

Communist Party would not allow the forum to defend the civil

liberties of "Trotskyites." Those with scruples, like I. F. Stone and

Professor Thomas I. Emerson, were put on notice that such support

would be considered disruptive. Nevertheless, endorsement of the

Minneapolis defendants and the related case of the veteran, James

Kutcher, who had lost both legs in the very "peoples' war" which the

Communists invoked with such religious fervor, was not short in coming

having been proposed by none less than the chair of the conference,

Paul J. Kern. Kutcher had lost first his limbs and then, due to his

membership in the "subversive" Socialist Workers Party, lost his

clerical position in the Veterans' Administration, his disability

pension and finally his public housing. Paul Robeson, a leading World

War II sentimentalist, (after Hitler unilaterally and violently

destroyed his Pact with Stalin) then took to the platform and in a

sordid display of Stalinist solidarity denounced adherents of the

Socialist Workers Party as "allies of fascism who want to destroy the

new democracies of the world. Let us not be confused. They are the

enemies of the working class. Would you give civil rights to the Ku

Klux Klan?" Kern's resolution was defeated.

I also recieved the following e-mail from CPUSA:

It is true that we did not oppose the Smith Act when originally

passed, seeing it as a wartime measure (mainly aimed at Trotskyites). That

mistake hurt us directly when the Smith Act was used to arrest the entire

national leadership of our Party, and many subsequent arrests of

second-level and state leaders. We fought those and other arrests and

prosecutions for many years until most or all provisions were declared

unconstitutional by State Supreme Courts or the US Supreme Court.

The internment of the Japanese was not based on the Smith Act but on an

Executive Order of Franklin Roosevelt. We did not oppose the internment

order and urged Japanese members to comply. This was later condemned by

several resolutions at several of our National Conventions, which stated

that we should have waged a campaign against the racist and unconstitutional

nature of the order. We apologized for not doing so.

Don't know what wikipedia is, and I am not the most authoritative source on

these issues. A large library may have our newspaper, the Daily World, the

Worker, or the Daily Worker on microfilm and you could find real source

material. The Daily Worker was published during the war, the Worker in the

late 1950s and early 1960s, and the Daily World in the 1960s to 1980s. Our

Conventions which condemned our position on Japanese internment happened

during the late 1960s and 1970s (if my memory is correct, the years were

1968, 1975, 1979).

Another source is the autobiography "Ganbatte" by Karl Yoneda, (University

of California Press) a Japanese American Communist who lived through that

period, went to a camp, and later fought to have the Party reverse its

position. It is a fascinating book in many regards (he was active in

attempts to organize farmworkers in the 1920s and later became a longshore

union activist) and is paired with the biography of his wife, Elaine Yoneda,

"The Red Angel" by Vivian Raineri (International Publishers), a European

American who went with him, and who had a long history going back to the

1920s of fighting for civil rights. If my memory serves, "Ganbatte" has the

actual text of the Convention resolution as an appendix.

Marc Brodine

I think it is fair to say now that CPUSA undoubtably supported the Smith Act, and Paul Robeson supported the CPUSA. But I still question the sentence "Trotskyists were no better than fascists and Klansmen and not deserving of any rights". Still awaiting Professor Klehr's response. --Mista-X 19:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about Robeson but it is a historical fact that the CPUSA applauded the use of the Smith Act against Trotskyists. Not only was this completely unprincipled class betrayal and collaboration with the capitalist state, it was myopic as it made it much easier for the US to use the Act against the CPUSA when the time came.

In 1948 Hall and 11 other CP leaders were tried under the notorious Smith Act, which made “conspiracy” to advocate the overthrow of the government by “force and violence” a felony. Convicted and sentenced to five years in prison, Hall jumped bail in 1951, while the verdict was being appealed. Apprehended within a few months, his jail term was lengthened to eight years, which he served at the Federal Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. [2]

Despite the obvious strengths of the Communist movement, there were numerous handicaps. The frequent zigzagging in political line, with equal ferocity brought to instantly changing positions, had sapped its intellectual credibility. The near-fanatical attachment to wartime national unity seemed all too characteristic of past adaptations Across a wide spectrum of efforts, the Party paid a heavy price, as Popular Front organizations (e.g., the Congress of Spanish Speaking Peoples) that had been created under difficult conditions were now suddenly abandoned or dissolved. In like manner, Communist insistence upon the no-strike pledge in war industries and other curbs on militancy, while not universally applied, nevertheless created hostility among some of the most militant industrial workers. Support of the Smith Act usage against Trotskyists and support of the confinement of Japanese Americans raised serious doubts about Communist commitments to civil liberties.Encylopedia of the American Left

Interestingly, the original Smith Act trials had the full support of the CPUSA, because it was first applied to a group of Trotskyists opposed to the U.S. role in World War II. Blacklisting Hollyood's Communists

"I persynally don't doubt that the CPUSA support the Smith Act's use against it's enemies, but I am not sure they lent it support in totality. For example, I like seeing the Security Certificate being used against Neo-Nazis such as Ernst Zundel, but don't support the security certificate in principle. I would like to see what CPUSA's official position on the Smith Act was and what they have to say about it now."

Sorry Mista-X but you're comparing Zundel to Trotskyists which is completely unfair. It's one thing to not oppose the use of the Smith Act against fascists, it's another to support its use against elements of the workers movement. What the CPUSA did was class betrayal, pure and simple. AndyL 00:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AndyL I agree with you on this, to a certain extent. I think that those times were much different though, and "Trotskyists" and "Stalinists" were much more hostile to each other then. Also, I was not meaning to draw a comparison on an bases of politics. I was simply trying to look at it from CPUSA's point of view. Perhaps it seemed like the smart, i.e. Machiavellian, thing to do at the time. They seem to now admit that it was a stupid thing to do at the time, but still don't regret doing it to Trotskyites. One has to wonder though, what the Trotskyites were doing to the movement. I find it hard and one sided to just paint an evil picture of the "Stalinists" in all this. --Mista-X 03:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What were the Trotskyists doing? They were organizing workers and encouraging workers demands against war profiteers. See this article on the Proletarian Military Policy for information on Trotskyist attitudes in WWII and their demands such as the right of soldiers to elect their officers and discuss the war freely. See also the article on the Smith Act.

But here's a short synopsis of what was going on:

On June 27—five days after Hitler invaded the USSR—FBI agents raided the offices of the SWP in Minneapolis and the twin-city of St. Paul, carting off large quantities of (perfectly legal) socialist literature.

On July 15, a Federal grand jury indicted 29 union and SWP members. There were two counts to the indictment. The first, based on the 1861 Sedition Act, a Civil War measure aimed against the Southern slaveholders and their agents—and never before used!—charged that the defendants conspired “to overthrow, put down and to destroy by force the Government of the United States of America, and to oppose by force the authority thereof ... The defendants would seek to bring about, whenever the time seemed propitious, an armed revolution ...”

The second count, based on the 1940 Smith Act, a reactionary and controversial law which criminalised the mere espousal of ideas, charged the defendants with advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence and urging insubordination in the armed forces.

The trial began in the Federal District Court in Minneapolis on October 27, 1941. The state side was unable to produce any proof of conspiracy, its “evidence” consisting mainly of public statements by the party and its leaders.[3]

As for Machiavellian, yes, the CPUSA was but you shouldn't assume being Machiavellian is a good thing, more often than not Machiavellianism is equivalent to opportunism. AndyL 16:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

page protected

I have protected this page due to an excessive number of reverts today. Please resolve the controversy over the Smith Act material on the talk page. Thanks. -- Viajero 17:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trying an unprotect to see how it goes. But please behave. Shanes 02:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that you protected Gamaliel's version of the article, how nice of you. It truly is good to see fair and impartial admins on Wikipedia, you know? But dont fret, someone is going to get burned.TDC 01:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Smith Act Source

Well, I have done it, an easily accesable source for the Smith quote, that I think everone can agree is gen-u-ine good.

• A similar ideological-emotional construction is apparent in the position Robeson took on the civil liberties of the Trotskyst Social Workers Party. At a Bill of Rights Conference in New York City in late July of 1949m a resolution was introduced calling for freedom for eighteen Trotskites convicted in 1941 under the same provisions of the Smith Act currently being used against the leaders of the CPUSA. The chairman of the conference, Paul J. Kern, argued forcefully before the convention that free speech should never be denied because of a difference in political opinion-a view seconded by Professor Thomas Emerson of the Yale Law School. An impassioned Robeson took the platform to denounce the Kern-Emerson position. Like most pro-Soviets, Robeson had long blamed the followers of Trotsky for spreading exaggerated “slander” about Stalin’s “police sate”. Adherents of the Socialist Workers Party, Robeson claimed, “are the allies of Fascism who want to destroy the new democracies of the world. Let’s not get confused, They are the enemies of the working class. Would you give civil rights to the Ku Klux Klan?” NO, the delegates roared back. They defeated the resolution and passed a substitute that simply called for the defense of “all anti-fascist victims” of the Smith Act. It was not Robeson’s finest hour.

Paul Robeson: A Biography by Martin Duberman page 382 footnote 3, page 699 The New York Times, July 19th 1949, National Gaurdian July 25th 1949

Not his finest hour indeed, or yours Viajero, or yours Gamaliel. Indeed .... indeed!

I might also go onto mention that one of the 12 SWP members was James Kutcher, a SWP member who had lost both his legs at Anzio in 1944.

"The Case of the Legless Veteran," Dissent, Winter 1986 Harvey Klehr, does touch on this, but this is so much better a source.

Time to unprotect this and gimme my props!TDC 01:11, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, just so long as there are no misunderstandings, I plan on copying the pages, converting them to .gif's and uploading them to Wikipedia in the morning, so you all can bask in my warm gentleness. Unless someone objects? TDC 01:15, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations. Assuming this latest source is correct, it only took you about six or seven different sources and fourteen months to get it right. Good show!

I don't expect you to understand this, but it was never about whether or not the information was correct. You were asked for sources for your information and you did not provide accurate citations. If you had been honest, accurate, and civil from the beginning, a whole lot of hassle could have been avoided. Gamaliel 06:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you not read anything on the discussion page? It's all about whether certain pieces of information on the noble and heroic HUAC "victim" Paul Robeson will be allowed to see the light of day or not. TDC 14:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I see a discussion page filled with requests for you to provide a citation, and you providing a series of vague and inaccurate ones. I can't speak for others, of course, but I never would have become invovled in the Smith Act dispute at all had you been accurate from the beginning. Gamaliel 19:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I intially removed the lengthy quoted text for placement here. I hadn't noticed that the text was already up for discussion, so I restored it to the main entry. However. Since the entire paragraph appears to be a quote it should be indicated as such in the article, or condensed with a reference to this Talk topic. There has been discussion on other pages as to whether block quotes constitute plagiarism. I appreciate Gamaliel's tenacity against obstructionist nonsourcing.

Duberman's bio makes it clear that Robeson was under a great deal of pressure to renounce his association with the CPUSA at the time the statement was made. Robeson's anti-Trotskyist rant reflects the CPUSA's line on the Trotskyists as counter-revolutionary. He failed to trancend the viewpoint of the party, but its hardly a shock that Robeson disliked Trotskyists. Nor does this hypocritical incident somehow validate the post WWII anti-left witchhunt. Now we have another source for improved context and further rewrites. DJ Silverfish 20:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

A witch hunt describes the search a mythical figure, a search that is impossible to complete, because no matter how long one searches for the "witch", it is all in vain. The HUAC hearings and other related incidents were not witch hunts, because a large number of those brought before it were indeed either KGB agents, like Owen Lattimore or slavishly willing Soviet symps like Robeson. It is very much relevant that Robeson would rail against the suppression of his Civil rights by the HUAC, when he, according to Duberman's bio, played no small part in ensuring that the Civil Rights of those whose political beliefs he found objectionable were also squashed. And you are right, its not shocking that Robeson disliked Trotsky, after all, as a devout Stalinist, Robeson spent a good deal of his life rhetorically felating his primary opponent.

But the book is a good source as unlike most bios written by sympathetic authors, pulls no punches.TDC 21:43, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I no longer have an objection to the inclusion of this material now that finally a proper and accurate source has been found. I do, however, object to plagiarism and I've removed this paragraph as it's almost entirely a word for word copy from a paragraph from Duberman's book. If you wish to include this material, please summarize the incident in your own words. Gamaliel 19:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent Allegations of Plagarism

A few things for Gamaliel. How exactly does this constitute plagiarism? It is sourced and not word for word, and if this does constitute plagiarism would you also be so vigilant in bringing this up in the Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War articles [4]?

Please, by all means call my bluff. TDC 22:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

If there is plagiarism in those articles, I suggest you remove it. The presence of plagiarism in other articles does not give you a free pass to commit it here. Your "new" paragraph is merely a change of perhaps a dozen words from the original, not to mention you have preserved the precise order and presentation of facts from the original. I have failed student papers for plagiarizing less than that. Gamaliel 22:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I am glad I am not a student of yours, aside from failing me, I doubt I would want to listen to you drone on and on about my politics. But, that is a matter for the classroom. Also, if you cared to investigate the articles mentioned, the history, and the talk pages, you would see that every attempt to do was reverted.

So I ask you, again, second time here, if this is plagiarism, then will you support my efforts to remove it from the two above mentioned articles? Or does your "attention to detail" end with users you dislike? TDC 22:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Considering I did not teach politics or history, such a scenario would not occur except in your stereotypical imaginings of liberal teachers out to snatch the political innocence of children. In any case, I support the efforts to remove plagiarized material from any article on Wikipedia inserted by any editor. This should go without saying, of course, but you apparently insist on viewing the application of standard Wikipedia policy through the prism of persecution. Gamaliel 23:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Politics pop up in every subject, so please don’t be coy about it.

So your answer to my question is yes, your "attention to detail" end with users you dislike?

Thank you for the clarification. TDC 23:04, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

TDC, Gamaliel has said, "if there is plagiarism in those articles, I suggest you remove it," and "I support the efforts to remove plagiarized material from any article on Wikipedia inserted by any editor. " - I believe that this means "go ahead and fix it yerself", not, "yes, you're right".

Unless, of course, instead of fixing it, the real reason you bring it up is so as to wave it around as an example of your martyrdom. You sound kind of like an 8-year-old whining because mommy punishes him for doing the same thing his brother got away with. --Rroser167 20:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to "fix it" before to no avail. Had you read the history and talk pages of the articles you would have known that, instead of sticking your nose in and looking ignorant like you have. Secondly, like I said before, for all of Gamaliel's complaining about how I am POV pushing on Wikipedia, he seems only interested in protecting its integrity to a certain point. Toodles. TDC 00:42, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

And what point would that be? Don't be coy. How do you get from "I support the efforts to remove plagiarized material from any article on Wikipedia inserted by any editor" to "he seems only interested in protecting its integrity to a certain point"? Because I don't immediately rush to deal with some vague, non-specific accusations regarding two random articles I haven't even read? If there's a problem with those articles, why can't you deal with it? I have no interest in jumping through hoops to prove anything to you. Gamaliel 01:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

TDC, you were better off not making me read the discussion pages - before I read them, I thought that you had an iron-clad case - now I realize from reading all the bitch-slapping you got over there that you're just crying like the infant you are. --Rroser167 02:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Polyglot?

How many languages was Robeson fluent in? It says "...conversant in over 20..." in the article. Can we be more specific? (A bulleted list with a breakdown by proficiency level would be nice). Did he know German and Yiddish? What about Russian? By conversant in 20 languages do we mean familiar with or able to carry on a basic conversation, or was he just able to get the accent right for performing, without the lyrics neccesarily being intelligible? The reason I'm asking is because I want to know if he can be defined as a true polyglot. I think that his earning a law degree, studying languages and history at Oxford, and still displaying his prodigious acting and singing ability while making time for outstanding atheletic acheivement when he was younger are all sufficient to keep him in the polymath category regardless, but it would be nice to know if we can add polyglot as well.--Jpbrenna 22:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, does anyone know the date or year that Paul Robeson Performed "Old man River" with his personal lyric changes? here's the website, so you guys can know what i'm talking about:

http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njh/PaulRobeson/lyrics.htm

damn good source on robeson, as well .--Kociol

Why the anti-Robeson bias? Why the anti-communist bias? Why the anti-black reference bias?

No sooner had I finished adding information from three African-American sources (Roy Wilkins, Robeson's autobiography, and from Robeson's granddaughter), along comes TDC (aka Ten Dead Chickens) to erase both saying they belong somewhere else. There appears to be severe racial and anti-communist bias in this article. I ask TDC to explain why he deleted viewpoints that do not concur with his own? TDC says on his personal user page that he is anti-communist. Trying to force this viewpoint down the throats of the public and the Wiki community violates the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia. This is a request for an explanation for editing that appears to be racially insensitive and non neutral.skywriter 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Non-Neutral Viewpoint Violates Wiki Policy

Ten Dead Chickens: This appears to be a violation of [5] with respect to lack of respect for other contributors. Please explain the edit reversing a short quote from Paul Robeson discussing his father. Please explain why you think what you reverted it to is both non-neutral and an improvement over what Robeson himself said about his father. Do you think his viewpoint should be excluded from this article? And if so, on what basis? skywriter 23:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to the actions of Ten Dead Chickens of reversing and wearing down contributors to the Paul Robeson page, this article has an extremely biased and racist perspective that does not do justice to its subject or to the people who come to read about Paul Robeson on Wikipedia. The basis of Ten Dead Chickens edits and reverts are solely based on whether or not what is added is in 100 percent agreement with the Ten Dead Chickens personal viewpoint, described in detail at the Ten Dead Chickens user page. Ten Dead Chickens is intolerant of varying points of view and this is in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy. I would like to hear what others have to say about this, but more importantly about the article itself, which I believe is slanted in a way that depicts Paul Robeson, a man who many admired, as a pariah. Ten Dead Chickens today even deleted what Robeson's granddaughter said about him, moments after I uploaded it. I find these actions to be in violation of the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. These are not subtle, nuanced edits. They are the work of the PC Police, of a person who has an axe to grind, a person Ten Dead Chickens with a rigid viewpoint who will not allow anyone who does not agree with Ten Dead Chickens to add to pages in which Ten Dead Chickens takes an interest.skywriter 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Is User Engaging in NonProductive Edit War for Ideological Reasons?

This is a Second Request for Explanation and a Protest Against Bias, a Violation of Wikipedia Policy

Specifically, I would like an explanation why Ten Dead Chickens deleted the following two sentences:

In the prologue to his autobiography, Robeson said of his father, Born a plantation slave in Martin County, North Carolina, my father escaped at the age of fifteen, in 1860, and made his way North on the Underground Railroad. In 1876, after working his way through Lincoln University, he married my mother, Maria Louisa Bustill, a school teacher in nearby Philadelphia."

These two sentences are more detailed and more interesting than those to which TDC reverted. That Robeson's mother was a Philadelphia school teacher appears nowhere else in the article.

Why were these sentences removed? And why were they removed without any discussion at all on this Talk page?

Aside from the bias aspect, Ten Dead Chickens violated Wikipedia policy by reverting this article three times in one day. Why? I look forward to the reply. skywriter 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why was the following deleted?'

The editing note says "belongs in Wikiquote." Because that part of the following lines that is a direct quote is in a blockquote, please cite the Wiki policy that required that it be deleted without discussion on this talk page?

One a rainy day in the middle of the Depression, Roy Wilkins ran into Paul Robeson on Harlem's Lenox Avenue. I'm bound for freedom, the great baritone told the staff man from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NAACP. Robeson thought about moving to London with the hope of putting Jim Crow behind him. My heart sank as I listened to him, Wilkins says in The Autobiography of Roy Wilkins which was written with Tom Mathews.

But Wilkins was wrong, Robeson's granddaughter, Susan Robeson, a documentary filmmaker and television producer, told The New York Times.

"...He was soon proclaimed by Americans of all colors and creeds—and by the press as well—as an American hero. His now legendary recording of Ballad for Americans had become an overnight success and came to be considered an unofficial national anthem. (It was even sung at the 1940 Republican National Convention!) For the next decade Robeson was a dominant figure, both artistically and politically, in American life. He was among the first to sing at concert on behalf of the U.S. World War II war effort and he became one of the top American actors and singers of that era. "Many of the civil and human rights causes so glibly espoused today were first championed by Robeson in America. He remained in this country from 1939 until 1958 and then lived at home in America from 1963 until his death in 1976."

In her letter to The New York Times',' Susan Robeson continued:

"From 1948—when he was at the pinnacle of fame and fortune—until 1958, Robeson was silenced because his exercise of free speech did not please forces in the American Government of that time. His passport was revoked from 1950 until 1958, when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional; at the same time he was barred from virtually every concert hall and recording studio in America—a ban that lasted a decade. Robeson records disappeared from the stores, and, quite astonishingly, his name was struck from the roster of the 1917 and 1918 college All-America football teams. The record showed a 10-man team in those years! If there is any tragedy associated with Robeson's life, it is that countless Americans have been denied accurate information about him for so long. Only now that he is safely dead is this American tragedy beginning to fade. September 26, 1982, The New York Times, Section 7; Page 32, Column 3; Book Review

Because you stalked me yesterday, Ten Dead Chickens, deleting nearly everything I added to various pages, it is incumbent upon you to justify your activities.

Ten Dead Chickens, if you are sincere in editing in a neutral and nonbiased manner, and you believed any part of my adds to this article needed to be Wikified, why did you delete it rather than fix it? Why use a sledgehammer when the job does not call for one? skywriter 10:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ten Dead Chickens, Please explain the deletion of the following lines, erased while you were in the process of stalking me yesterday deleting everything I wrote. If you believed the following belonged in a series of blockquotes, why did you not add that, or raise that issue on this talk page? If your personal viewpoint consists of the bizarre and undocumented story of Itzik Feffer, please indicate that. If the Feffer story is so compelling to you that you want to argue that no other viewpoint, including Robeson's own explanation for his acceptance of the Stalin Prize is valid, feel free to put forward that POV. In any case, because you failed to bring up this matter on this Talk Page yet deleted my contributions, I again ask that you explain your activities of yesterday. By the way, the Feffer tale is now flagged for lack of attribution.

First of all, I was not stalking you, so please don’t go down that line of argument. Please assume good faith as I have doen with you. I could understand why you believe I was, but the fact of the matter is that all three articles where we were involved yesterday have been on my watch list for quite some time, and I have made frequent edits to both of them for a while now, two years on the Robeson article, about two months on the “People’s History” article, and I have been observing the Ludlow article for several months now.

Now, as per your question: this is an “encyclopedia”, not a polemic. Go look at a biographical entry in the encyclopedia Britannica and compare that to what you are doing here. The material you are attempting to add the adds little if any factual value on the life of Paul Robeson, it is primarily laudatory commentary from himself, his family, and admirers, and that’s why we have a Wikiquote. I could find volumes of information on him that I could drop in the article, also in quote form, of the not so glowing variety.

As for the specific guidelines and policies that pertain to this, I referred them to you yesterday:

Do not include copies of primary sources (specifically text; maps and other images can be very useful) in Wikipedia. If it is a large source, consider placing it in Wikisource. Wikibooks Annotated works and Project Gutenberg are other alternatives for pursuing primary source documentation.

Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches, lengthy quotations, etc. In an article of a treaty, for example, summarize the treaty and then provide an external link (or, if the treaty is on Wikisource, an interwiki link) to the actual treaty. Smaller sources and samples are acceptable in articles. Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias.

I have always objected to the use of long rambling quotations in articles, when their points can be summarized in a sentence or two. This saves space, and I feel that the overuse of quotations in articles can have large unbalancing effect on the general bias in the article.

But feel free to solicit other opinions on this specific issue, I think that the majority of consensus will be on this side of the issue. Ten Dead Chickens 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with TDC in this matter.--Jbull 17:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear you agree 100% Jbull. Thank you for today adding citations to that long controversial passage under the heading Itzik Feffer in the Paul Robeson article. Do you also agree 100% that the 271-word passage that originated at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin041398.html was wrongly transported verbatim to this Paul Robeson page, without crediting its author, and without being put in blockquotes or even ordinary quote marks? I suggest these 13 sentences be summarized into one sentence with a link to the original. Does anyone disagree with this proposed editing change? I am familiar with biographical materials on Robeson and have seen this story nowhere else. Does anyone think this tale should be believed? What is the independent verification? I ask because it is highly controverial and inconsistent with Robeson's character. skywriter 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you are not that familiar with biographical materials on Robeson because the original source was Martin Duberman’s bio of Robeson, in which Duberman relays the story from Robeson’s son, Paul Jr, and I would very much disagree with trimming it. And what exactly about this "tale" is so unbelievable? Robeson was a diehard communist and Stalinist, and took every opportunity, ala the Civil Rights Conference and the Smith Act, to demonize and attach opponents of the USSR under Stalin. How committed could Robeson really be to the causes of “civil rights” when he knew damn well, from his own first hand experience, that the holocaust was going to be replayed in the Soviet Union (ala the Doctor’s Plot), and he denounced it as “propaganda”.Ten Dead Chickens 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this long passage then not sourced to Duberman? There is obvious bias and a double standard in the long history and presentation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson . On the one hand, Ten Dead Chickens argues unpersuasively that this article --that happens to match Ten Dead Chickens's personal viewpoint-- can be lifted at length and plopped into the middle of this Wiki article. In summary activites yesterday in deleting all substantive contributions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson Ten Dead Chickens has demonstrated intolerance of viewpoints different from his own. I ask that this contradiction be addressed and that bias against and suppression of differing viewpoints be ended at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson Why should 13 sentences of verbatim quotation from an article on the Internet be permitted to continue on this or any Wiki page? That is the central question in this exchange. Explain why a link would not suffice? I an not interested in engaging in an editing war. For the record, this is one example of systematic bias in this article. There is an internal contradiction in the argument that these 13 sentences can not be summarized. Please address this central editing question with the goal of arriving at consensus and a neutral viewpoint. skywriter 20:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I approve of your edits to the section, TDC.--Jbull 19:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance of the Stalin Prize in His Own Words

Robeson accepted the Stalin Prize in recognition of the efforts of himself and others to stop President Harry S. Truman from dropping a third nuclear bomb in Asia. The United States is the only country to use nuclear weapons, having dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In accepting the Stalin Prize, Robeson said, "We know how Truman betrayed the American people in their hopes for peace, how he betrayed the Negro people in their thirst for equal rights, how he tore up the Bill of Rights and subjected the whole American people to a reign of FBI-terrorization.

"The Korean war has always been an unpopular war among the American people. We remember the unforgivable trickery in the use of the United Nations to further the purposes of 'American century' imperialists in that land-quite comparable to the taking of Texas from Mexico, the rape of Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Hawaii. At one point American peace sentiment helped to stop Truman from pursuing use of the atom bomb in Korea and helped force the recall of MacArthur." [6]

Robeson sounded an early alarm to stop U.S. efforts to replace the warring French in Southeast Asia, saying, "There are real threats of attempting to support France on a major scale in Indo-China." [7]

In his acceptance speech, Robeson said he was confident black people would support the peace movement because the continuing war in Korea would harm the struggle for civil rights. "We know that war would mean an end to our struggle for civil rights, FEPC (Fair Employment Practices Committee), the right to vote, an anti-lynching law, (and) abolition of segregation."

Robeson sided with those who were sympathetic to the struggles of black people in the United States, saying, "...the Negro people watch Africa and Asia and closely follow the liberation struggles of the rising peoples in these lands. We watch the United Nations and see the U.S.A. join with the western imperialist nations to stifle the liberation struggles. We cannot help but see that it is ...the spokesman of the Eastern European Peoples Democracies who defend and vote for the interests of the African and Asian peoples." [Ibid] skywriter 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for explanation of deletion

Ten Dead Chickens appears to be engaging in an aggressive editing war. This should stop. This entry is for the Wiki record that Ten Dead Chickens (cur) (last) 21:35, 8 February 2006 TDC deleted this factual content without explanation or discussion on this Talk Page.

- The biography by Martin Duberman states that Robeson was not a member of the Communist Party.

This is a pertinent fact germane to the fairness of this article as currently presented. This fact is sourced to the biographer whom Ten Dead Chickens previously cited. This fact introduces nuance that Ten Dead Chickens addresses aggressvely by deleting it. This deletion demonstrates aggressive rigidity in viewpoint -- a POV unwilling or unable to accept nuance or grey area. Inability to accept viewpoints inconsistent with one's personal viewpoint violates this Wiki policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines

2. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all differing views on a subject, factually and objectively, in an order which is agreeable to a common consensus.

In the interest of avoiding an editing war, this is a request to Ten Dead Chickens to reverse this deletion or explain the basis for deletion of the fact that Robeson was not a member of the communist party, as stated explicitly in the Duberman biography. In the spirit of seeking consensus and a neutral point of view, this renews earlier requests for summary explanations for deletions. skywriter 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC) skywriter 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And why was all the information in your recent edits removed? Ten Dead Chickens 14:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Whact exactly are you referring to, Chickens? I am still waiting for you to answer all of the questions raised above, in connection with wholesale deletions made of the longer edits as well as slight changes I made on my day off to this page. Without answers, it will be concluded you do not wish to arrive at consensus and a non-neutral point of view. Acting in concert with tbull, you have since made wholesale deletions of both major and minor content changes I have made, which I intend to comment upon but can not at the moment. I am at a disadvantage to you in that I work for a living and do not have the free time available to you and jbull to delete changes to this page within seconds or minutes of their appearance. skywriter 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I made no changes to any of your content edits [8] I only added material you deleted. Also, I work for a living as well and unless you have some evidence that I "acted in concert with tbull", I would not go down that line of inquiry. Ten Dead Chickens 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Explanation of Deletion

JBull removed the following without discussion on this talk page: His recording of Ballad for Americans was sung at the 1940 Republican National Convention. [September 26, 1982, The New York Times]

15:29, 10 February 2006 Jbull m (?Activism and advocacy - minor edits and removal of vague, unsourced claims)

What supports claim this is either vague or unsourced, or a minor edit? Please explain why/how this is a non-neutral deletion? skywriter 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

1. This is an encyclopedia. It is not the place to record every bit of trivia.
2. The fact that an artist's record was played anywhere is pointless. Robeson sold many records, which were played in many places.
3. The only possible reason you would insist on the inclusion of this factoid is to whitewash Robeson's proudly-held leftist views.
4. My name is Jbull, not "tbull."--Jbull 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Erasures by Jbull that introduce prejudice against the subject of this article: His recording of Ballad for Americans was sung at the 1940 Republican National Convention. [September 26, 1982, The New York Times] AND THIS: ]. in 1946, he pressed President Truman to act against the lynching of black people, and encouraged black people to fight back to defend themselves.

Reply to Jbull: These edits do not approach a neutral point of view [9] based on a fair reading of the many biographies written about Robeson. Rather these edits attempt to censor him and place him in negative light while failing to allow other viewpoints. It is not trivial that the 1940 Republican National Convention played a recording of Robeson singing Ballad for Americans as this is his signature song. While this fact may be inconvenient, it is an instance of gray area that must not be censored because it is uncomfortable to proponents of the conservative viewpoint.

Skywriter--I will continue to remove your claim that Robeson's record was played at the Republican National Convention as irrelevant trivia.--Jbull 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, the erasure of this: ]. in 1946, he pressed President Truman to act against the lynching of black people, and encouraged black people to fight back to defend themselves. is not the work of an unprejudiced editor. This effort to stop lynchings was central to Paul Robeson's life and if it is deleted again, it tests whether Wikipedia can maintain a neutral tone and viewpoint in factual matters of importance. skywriter 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I could say the sam about your removal of the information on Feffer and his speech at the Bill of Rights conference. Ten Dead Chickens 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you could but it would be untrue. I did not remove the material on Feffer. Another editor did, saying it was slander. It is slander and it is also not in Duberman's book as cited. Several weeks ago, I flagged those paragraphs as in need of citation. Someone added http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin041398.html as the citation. Indeed, it is a verbatim cut and paste from that opinion piece. When I pointed that out, Jbull erased the link to http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/tobin041398.html and subbed the word 'Duberman' at the end of the paragraph. Unfortunately, the Duberman biography tells a story that is very different from that told in the opinion piece in the Jewish World Review. The Feffer piece—as another editor corectly pointed out a week or so ago, just before that editor's contributions were quickly deleted and reversed—is false and it is slander as it appears in this Wikipedia article. I urge everyone reading this to look at the Duberman biography and determine the truth or falsity of this for yourself. The claim that this is the story Duberman told is a clear violation of all scholarship guidelines and of Wikipedia standards. skywriter 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul Robeson: A Biography, by Martin Duberman, pages 352-354. I wold invite all to look at it as well. Also see The Rosenberg File: Second Edition by Ronald Radosh, pages 563-564. For the origin of the story (all others are based off of this) see. How My Father Last Met Itzik Feffer Paul Robeson Jr, Jewish Currents, November 1981. Or for another story on the last days of Feffer and Robesons involvement with it see Stalin's War Against the Jews by Louis Rapoport, pg 291-293. There is no lack of information on this, and the wordking in the article reflects all these accounts. Robeson asked to meet with Feffer, Feffer was cleaned up and brought to him, told Robeson that the “Doctors Plot” was real and that a number of Jews had been executed, and that he was next, Robeson then told people back in the West that these were lies created to smear the Soviets. Its all there. Ten Dead Chickens 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we please start placing these citations in the article instead of just the talk page? Whatever you think about the Feffer issue, just sticking the word "Duberman" at the end of a paragraph is clearly not an adequate citation. Gamaliel 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout that Jbull, did not mean to overwrite you. Ten Dead Chickens 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper Citation for Itzik Feffer Story

I suggest that Robeson's encounter with and betrayal of Feffer be annotated with footnotes. To facilitate this, I have added TDC's references to the bottom of the article.

TDC--Would you mind adding the cites?--Jbull 17:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull: You added this: Rappaport, Louis. Stalin's War Against the Jews: The Doctors Plot & The Soviet Solution, Free Press (October 1, 1990) ISBN 0029258219 to the section called Other References.
In that book, Rappaport accuses Feffer of being complicit in the death of Solomon Mikhoels. Do you continue to insist that the following sentence be included in this article about Robeson:

However, Robeson made no reference to Feffer's fate once back in the West, claiming that he "had heard no word about it", only telling the truth to a few sympathetic people. Feffer was killed in 1952  

I see no reason to include it. Do you? skywriter 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I do see a reason to include it; it is symptomatic of Robeson's refusal to speak out against Stalin and the USSR.--Jbull 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition of More False Information to Robeson Page

Ten Dead Chickens labels his POV content change of Feb. 17, 2006 as "slight mod for readability"

Too bad. Not only are his changes historically improbable, they are historically impossible.

The chickens edit: Rumors of a new round of anti-Jewish purges in the Soviet Union began to spread, and Robeson was asked to inquire about the well being of several individuals during his 1949 trip to the USSR.

• There is no Wikipedia link to anti-Jewish purges. Chickens does not document or source his claim that "Rumors of a new round of anti-Jewish purges in the Soviet Union began to spread" What rumors? Why are rumors in this encyclopedic article?

The accurate citation is [10] where we find the 'Doctor’s plot' began in 1952, not in 1949 as chickens claims.

Its in the background section:

In the course of the Cold War and the State of Israel allying with the West, the Soviet regime eliminated the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in 1948 and launched an anti-Semitic campaign against so-called "rootless cosmopolitans". Ten Dead Chickens 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase was asked to inquire is passive politician-speak for sentences such as "Mistakes were made: others will be punished." Who asked Robeson to inquire? Where is the documentation? Or, is this more POV?

He was asked because he knew Feffer and Mikhoels and was traveling to the USSR, and no one had heard from either one of them in a while. Pg 353 Duberman. Ten Dead Chickens 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The addition of this false and misleading information provides new reasons for the label factual accuracy and non-neutral viewpoint in dispute. skywriter 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read the source before you begin attacking me again. Ten Dead Chickens 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The original edition of Paul Robeson by Martin Bauml Duberman (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1988) says nothing of the kind. Duberman says Robeson initiated his own demand to look for his friend, Feffer. You were not attacked. Your introduction of false and misleading information continues as the source of controversy. Changing the link to the doctor's plot does not change the historical impossibility of the doctor's plot being introduced in 1949. Documentation in the Wikipedian article plainly states that false allegations about the doctors' plot began in 1952 and not earlier as you now claim. Please provide documentation for your POV claim the doctors' plot occurred in 1949 and earlier, or delete it. Please provide documentation for the "rumor" you introduced into this article, or delete it. skywriter 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The groundwork for the “Doctors’ Plot”, i.e. a largescale purge of Soviet Jews, was begun in 1949.

Most Recently the “Doctor’s Plot” has been described as “the Apotheosis of the huge postwar purge fabricated at Stalin’s will that was preceded by a propagandistic attack initiated in 1949 against so called stateless cosmopolitans.

-Stalin's Last Crime: The Plot Against the Jewish Doctors, 1948-1953 by Jonathan Brent, Vladimir Naumov pg 54 Ten Dead Chickens 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Politics, Communism and Cold War Edits

I just did a major reworking of the Politics, Communism and Cold War section. I added subsections, removed direct quotes where appropriate and tried for a NPOV, encyclopedic approach. Please let me know what you think.--Jbull 22:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm at work and can't get back with a critique but will do so as time allows. This article continues as

. An anonymous user removed that label and of course that is unacceptable, as there are many outstanding items on this Talk page that have not been addressed. And then, of course, there are the significant issues of wholesale deletions of various people's edits without discussion on this Talk page, and with absolutely no attempt at consensus. skywriter 23:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Inserting Factually False Information Violates All Standards of Scholarship and Good Faith

<blockquote

This section repeats the request for documentation asked for above and ignored. These words do not appear on page 353 of the Duberman biography. Chickens must withdraw this claim because he has not provided documentation in any edition of the Duberman biography to support this factual claim. This is an issue of Fact, not Point of View, and Must Be Addressed for the Continuation of Good Faith.

The exchange follows for clarity.

Chickens wrote:

He was asked because he knew Feffer and Mikhoels and was traveling to the USSR, and no one had heard from either one of them in a while. Pg 353 Duberman. Ten Dead Chickens 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I replied: The addition of this false and misleading information provides new reasons for the label factual accuracy and non-neutral viewpoint in dispute. skywriter 20:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Chickens claimed he was "attacked" and referred readers to the source.

Please read the source before you begin attacking me again. Ten Dead Chickens 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I replied: The source does not show Chickens claim to be true: The original edition of Paul Robeson by Martin Bauml Duberman (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1988) says nothing of the kind. Duberman says Robeson initiated his own demand to look for his friend, Feffer. ... skywriter 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC) skywriter 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several variation on the exact details Robesons trip to Moscow in 1949, Duberman Rappaport, and Radosh. It is a minor detail, whether he was asked or did it after hearing about Mikhoels' death. If you bothered to follow the edit changes, you would have realized that this was reflected in my last edit. Please calm down. Ten Dead Chickens 15:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As discussed more fully in the entry below, Rappaport's book, based on Soviet archives, accuses Feffer of complicity in Mikhoels' death, which is not a minor detail at all in the context of writing this article about Robeson. It is major. Your excoriation of Robeson for not speaking out on behalf of Soviet writers, including Feffer, is flat out not true. He spoke out where it counts-- on stage in the Moscow concert hall before thousands of people in a highly controversial performance that aggravated the KGB and Soviet authorities, as Bancroft Prize winner David Levering Lewis wrote in the Stewart biography. This set of facts is also reflected in Duberman's biography and yet you have edited out. The effect of selective editing is to bring falsity to this page, and in this instance, it is an effort to show Robeson as being of negative character when there is no evidence of that in the Feffer example. Most troubling about edits of this type reflect a determination not to see nuance, not to see shades of gray, and not to rely on secondary sources but rather on one's personal opinion. Radosh, of course, is not a Robeson biographer. He is a professional anti-communist who is emeritus at the rightwing Hudson Institute. For anyone to try to argue that Hudson Institute is not a conservative rightwing think tank is at variance with the institute's self-descriptions as well as descriptions in the mainstream press. I take no issue with including Radosh's viewpoint so long as the viewpoints of other scholars are included. I therefore suggest a section on what intellectuals have said about Robeson. This section should incorporate the varied opinions and not just the Hudson Institute opinion. Will you agree to this change? skywriter 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

More Recent Edits

One of the problems of Wikipedia, of course, is that anyone may contribute in any way, without citing scholarly research, or engaging in scholarly skepticism about sources (e.g., journalistic sources are often inaccurate, so one must look for multiple sources for the same info; so if the ANZAC article below is the only one that mentions Robeson's view of the 1956 uprising, than it should be discounted). For anyone interested in Robeson, I highly recommend the following *scholarly* biographies, both of which provide detailed scholarly apparatus, and are thoroughly researched: Martin Duberman, _Paul Robeson_; Andrew Bunie & Sheila Boyle, _Paul Robeson: The Years of Promise And Achievement_ (U of Mass. Press). For a nearly exhaustive collection of Robeson's speeches and public commentary, everyone interested in RObeson should look at Philip S. Foner, _Paul Robeson Speaks: Writings, Speeches, and Interviews_ (Citadel press). Finally, whether one thinks it was a wise choice or not, the reason Robeson did not speak out against Stalin in the U.S. to the press (though he did, despite physical danger in the USSR), was, according to his son and his letters (and his actions, such as the Truman anti-lynching delegation) that he felt that to denounce the USSR would be to give ammunition to the forces of reaction in the U.S. who continued to oppress (and lynch!) African-Americans. He naively expected that the Soviet guarantees of racial equality would eventually be upheld. One can disagree with his reasoning and his choice, but there was a specific concern for civil rights behind it. 70.19.136.8

Sorry, I just dont buy it. Robeson was taken in by the most vicious propagator (Stalin) of the most vicious cult of the 20th century (Stalinism). As intelegent as he was, he should have know better, but his hate of the United States, and lets call a spade a spade, drove him to embrace anything that opposed it. His folly is that of DuBois and Neruda, and there are no apologies or excuses for for it. We dont come up with half assed excuses for Leni Riefenstahl or Oswald Mosley. Ten Dead Chickens 23:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull: Please do not make wholesale changes to the article without responding to discussion in talk. Please address the arguments. You are steamrolling reversions with no regard for the WP:3RR and without responding to specific arguments against these reverts. These actions subvert wikipedia goals. skywriter 02:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse me of violating the 3RR, please look up the difference between reverts and edits. If you still think that I am violating Wikipedia rules, alert a moderator and have me suspended.--Jbull 02:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull and Ten Dead Chickens: Please do not re-insert material that is unsourced, or that has been removed for cause. Please stop deleting swaths of text that does not support yours or the opinions of the rightwing Hudson Institute. This behavior has been evident for more than a few weeks, and was temporarily tolerated with the hope that you would reply to comments on this Talk page. But that has not happened. We have watched as you have deleted the contributions of three or four people, driving contributors away when their viewpoints differ from yours. More than five biographies of Robeson's life give a full vision of the man, and yet material based on those biographies is removed (by both of you) as quickly as it is placed in this article. An entire section on Trotsky had been up for a long time and yet was sourced to no one; it is unintelligible, and has nothing to do with Paul Robeson. Tonight I removed it and tonight Jbull re-introduced it. These editing games are unwelcome. Two paragraphs above, Chickens' emotional outburst would be highly valued at alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, but has no place here. Unless Chickens is in receipt of a special dispensation by either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee to insert strongly held views into Wikipedia articles, we all hope he will abide by the rules, and rely on the excellent Robeson biographies for source material. skywriter 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull Stop the editing war. Stop substituting marginal references for material taken from full biographies of this man. This man's life is not your ideological playground. Take your Stalin stuff to the Stalin pages. It is not central to Robeson's life. His fight against racism in the United States was central as was his art. You have done your best to show Robeson in the worst possible light. This is aggressive and unacceptable. It is a lynching. Robeson met Feffer twice in his life, briefly, and you insist on dominating his life story with one of those two meetings, and also delete what his biographers said about his response to that meeting? And you want to replace it with your own research? Sorry, that is prejudicial and takes the focus entirely away from the subject of this article. If you want to write about Stalin, go to the Stalin pages. Stop distorting the encyclopedic legacy of Paul Robeson. skywriter 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

False information was introduced into this article to advance a non-neutral point of view. The person who did it chose not to respond on this page to comments about introducing the lies. That behavior is not acceptable here or anywhere. The slandering of Robeson's reputation must stop now. The goal must be neutrality, and to allow readers to draw their own conclusions, based on facts, not force-fed, politically correct opinions.
It is never acceptable to suppress viewpoints that do not concur with that of those who have hijacked these pages for their own political purposes but that is what has been going on for weeks now. The basis of all of the criticisms of those here who hate Robeson is that he did not agree with them. That is insufficient to condemn a man with a remarkable story. The goal should be to tell his story, not to tell what each of us thinks of his story. Let readers make up their own minds. skywriter 04:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull It is bad faith to remove the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Anti-Fascist_Committee when that committee is the basis of Feffer knowing Robeson.

That was Gamaliel, not me.--Jbull 04:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. I have no objection to such a link provided it is done in the proper way of linking to other wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Links. Gamaliel 04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the editing war. Stop removing facts you don't personally approve of. skywriter 04:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull Stop the editing war. Feffer is not the most important person in Robeson's life. Feffer met him twice briefly. Stop trying to make Feffer the focus of this article. He is not. If you want to focus on Feffer, do it on the Feffer page. If you like Stalin, do him on the Stalin page. Thousands of pages of biography have been written about Robeson's life, and vast, complex swaths of his life have been ignored in favor of this strained emphasis on a man he barely knew. Don't make more than 1000 words in a 2000-word encyclopedic article about your views about his views on the Soviets. He praised the Soviet Union for trying to make things better for women and racial minorities; he said the United States was stuck in the dark ages. Stop suppressing Robeson's views and the reasons why he said the Soviet Union attracted him. No one cares whether or not you personally approve. Take it to alt-fans-I-hate-Stalin pages. The complexities, texture and significant facts of Robeson's life story are being drowned by your insistence on a long, drawn out version of this Feffer story. Feffer died four years after Robeson left the concert hall. Robeson had nothing to do with Feffer's death, as Chickens falsely inserted in the text. The purpose of enclyclopedic articles is to provide facts. Stop inserting your opinion of whether or not he should have criticized someone or something you think he should have criticized. That is the essence of the editing war, although you have not had the courtesy to argue that viewpoint on this Talk page and that is what makes your edits so objectionable. They violate civility, NPOV, and much, much more. Adhere to the guidelines. Stop injecting opinion. For several weeks, I patiently asked you to explain your edits. But at no time did I change what you wrote or edited. I asked. You did not respond to the central questions. You leave no choice but to delete objectionable sections until they can be rewritten to consensus. I have removed and will continue to remove all objectionable copy that is not neutral in viewpoint AND the text reached by consensus on this page. skywriter 05:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robeson was an enthusiastic Communist and supporter of Stalin at the height of the Cold War. Partly as a result of this, he was investigated by the FBI and HUAC, left the US and fell from prominence as an entertainer. Despite Robeson's humanitarian sympathies, he was an unswerving supporter of one of the most repressive regimes in history. Despite his sympathies for the oppressed, Robeson refused to speak up in the West for Feffer. Robeson attacked the HUAC for being fascists, but wrote an ode to Josef Stalin, who killed millions. To ignore these inconvenient facts would be to simplify Robeson's messy, fascinating life. Edits to sanitize Robeson's life will be reverted.--Jbull 14:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Stop the editing war. Stop removing facts you don't personally approve of." Where in God's name do you get off saying this? You have removed large amounts of material from the article simply because they don’t portray this "remarkable man" in a good light. I suggest you simmer down and stop hurling accusations against people, when you are equally guilty, if not more so in most cases. Ten Dead Chickens 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not the job of a Wikipedia article to make editorial value- judgments as is done throughout this article, despite the efforts of several people to edit out the opinion, and to discuss these edits on this Talk page. Remember: articles must use a neutral point of view. Nowhere else on popular parts of the Internet is Paul Robeson trashed as he is in this article. This is particularly offensive in the middle of Black History Month when students seek information about history. This article does not rely on the many scholarly biographies written about his life but instead relies on a small set of facts selected by extremists with an axe to grind. The insertion of false and/or opinionated text hurts the article (and Wikipedia's reputation as a trustworthy source of information rather than partisanship.) skywriter 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not policy to make an editorial value on the subject, but the removal of information which may be seen as critical to Robeson is a defacto editorial policy, as whitewashing usually is. I could care less how this article fits into BHM, that is not my concern as this is not an episode of the Tavis Smiley show. At least you have finally acknowledged that what you are attempting to move is "factual". The insertion of opinionated text is entirely congruent with Wiki's editorial policy unless the opinions are "fringe", which these are most certainly not. Many of Robeson’s critics have pointed to his Stalinist lap-doggery and his silence on Feffer’s fate. Ten Dead Chickens 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

New editors, please note that you do not link to Wikipedia articles in the same fashion that you would to an external website. Please see Wikipedia:Links. Gamaliel 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, if you believe someone has incorrectly added a link, please do not delete it. Please fix it instead. Removing the link often distorts meaning. skywriter 04:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Editing War

In continuing acts of aggression, Jbull has again ignored the conversation on this Talk page that itemize the many and various disputes over biased editing in this article in favor of summarily and without discussion delete the newer version of this article that takes out the contentious points and asked, on this Talk page, to discuss further edits before adding to this page. Jbull has reverted to the disputed version which ignores the many solid biographies written about Paul Robeson in favor of a narrow ideological agenda.skywriter 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Distortion of a Citation

Colored by an aggressively non-neutral point of view, JBull distorted a footnoted fact by inserting his opinion of a citation that properly summarized a fact that appeared in The New York Times. The disputed sentence is as follows: After he gained infamy for his Communist ties, his name was struck from the roster of the 1917 and 1918 college All-America football teams. [September 26, 1982, The New York Times,] Specifically, JBull added the phrase After he gained infamy for his Communist ties, to the above sentence, leaving the reader to conclude that appeared in the NYT when it did not. JBull's opinion should be removed as it is prejudicial and does not belong in an encyclopedic article. Jbull has re-inserted this prejudicial and highly inflammatory phrase many times in the last several weeks, despites its removal for cause. Jbull violates wikiopeian trust and spirit, disrupting Wikopedian operations in pursuit of an extreme rightwing ideological agenda. skywriter 15:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robeson's name was indeed struck from the All-American list in 1949 because of his Communist ties, as this pro-Robeson website confirms.[11]--Jbull 16:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In the history of this article, the phrase "After he gained infamy" has been repeatedly deleted and repeatedly reinstated even in the current version. Continuation of inflammatory phrasing hurts this article and Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral, non-opinionated source of information.skywriter 16:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please suggest a rephrasing, then, that retains the reason why he was struck from the All-American list without being inflammatory.--Jbull 17:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I did-- several times-- but you and Jbull reverted it each time ---in favor of your nonneutral point of view which I have been pointing out for weeks. skywriter 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

citation needed template

why is the citation needed template in this form: {{citation needed}}? why not just use the template like this ? I'm talking specifically about the "Investigations" section under "Politics, Communism, and the Cold War".--Alhutch 17:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference? Thanks. skywriter 17:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

this one {{citation needed}} leads to the template page, which doesn't really help you that much. this one leads to Wikipedia:Citing sources, which is a helpful page. adding tl before the name gives you this display {{citation needed}}, which is not how a template is intended to be used.--Alhutch 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Tx skywriter 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and switch the templates with AutoWikiBrowser's find and replace function.--Alhutch 19:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

done.--Alhutch 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

For the Record=

The following appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W.E.B._DuBois&action=edit&section=6 and applies equally to the passionate folks who have hijacked this Robeson article.

For the benefit of TDC, I'm posting here the text of the listing on RfC for this page and Pablo Neruda: "Were these historical figures actually "Stalinists"? If so, is this fact important enough to include in the introductions to these articles? Is it true that they actually performed the pro-Soviet activities listed in their articles? How much space should be devoted to such activities compared to the activities they are famous for to the general public?" Gamaliel 18:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion both DuBois and Neruda can be called "Stalinists" only by enormously expanding the meaning of the word, to the point where (as Sam Spade has it above) a "Stalinist" is not an explicit backer of Stalin's policies and positions, but instead, by default, anyone who was a Communist or sympathetic to Communism, and not a Maoist or Trotskyist, during Stalin's time in power, and/or anyone who ever said a nice thing about Stalin. To use this broad a sense of the word is a tendentious distortion of its usual meaning. Therefore, my opinion is (a) that it makes little sense to call either one a Stalinist and (b) that their pro-Soviet positions are not the most significant points about either one, and should be treated only briefly in their articles. I have little taste for the partisan bickering and edit-warring which characterize most of the edits to this article, so I'm unwatching it and moving on to other topics. But it seems a shame to allow the kind of naked POV-pushing that might be expected on current politics spread into articles on major intellectual and artistic figures. Let's not waste more time re-fighting the Cold War when a better article on either DuBois or Neruda would be so easy to create. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

end of excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:W.E.B._DuBois&action=edit&section=6

skywriter 19:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Robeson's lapdoggery for Stalin and the USSR were not minor incidents in his life, its what drove him and his political activism from 1930 till his death. I realize now that with DuBois, it was just a passing intellectual fancy, like DuBois's awe of Imperial Japan. Neruda to saw, or at least he claimed to, the “folly” of his way. Robeson, however, was very publicly faithful all the way to the end. Ten Dead Chickens 19:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are facts about Feffer Distorted to the Point of Being False in This Article?

A lot of time has been spent on this business about Feffer, and he is a minor character in Robeson's life. Still, the current and majority of the versions on this page manage to consistently get the facts wrong. Why is that?

For example, the January 26 version of this biographical article opined: "The story of Itzik Feffer is an example of the lengths Paul Robeson would go to to defend the communist Soviet Union."

In the weeks since then, two individuals have daily reverted the work of everyone who has edited this page to make this opinion the central fact of Robeson's life, thereby massively distorting what all of the books focusing on Robeson say. I too am being driven away but before leaving, there should be a record of what has transpired for the benefit of anyone who wants to pursue this.

On February 15, 2006, User Jbull added the following reference to the Paul Robeson article:

Revision as of 17:48, 15 February 2006 Jbull (Talk | contribs) News References Newer edit ? Line 95: Line 95:

+ ==Other References== + + Rappaport, Louis, Stalin's War Against the Jews: The Doctors Plot & The Soviet Solution, Free Press (October 1, 1990) ISBN: 0029258219

Information in the Robeson article continued to be built around Rapaport's opinion. Note the proper spelling is Rapoport. The substance of the article, which has now become the central feature of the article on Robeson's life accuses Robeson of not speaking up for Feffer. Repeatedly erased from this article are the facts that Robeson defied the Soviet regime before a large concert audience in Moscow in defense of Feffer and the man Feffer, a KGB agent, was accused of helping to murder. Robeson died 15 years before the allegation that Feffer helped murder Mikhoels. Maybe he suspected Feffer of being KGB and was backing away. Whatever. As information introduced into any Wikipedia article is subject to verification, I read the book. First off, there is nothing new about Robeson in this book, no original research whatsoever, just pure opinion. Second, a central feature is Rapaport's claim that Feffer helped set up the murder of Solomon Mikhoels, chairman of the Jewish Anti-fascist Committee. Rapaport, who is deceased, sources his information about Feffer to KGB files released after the fall of the Soviet Union and interviews he conducted with the daughters of Solomon Mikhoels. So, this is a lot of information that has nothing to do with Paul Robeson in this Robeson article. Why is that? But conveniently left out of the many reversions and erasures that have been exhibited on this page in the last few weeks that I've been watching is anything resembling the truth or fair play toward the subject of this article.

Aggressive folks who have systematically deleted biographical information about Robeson, replace it with false and inflammatory information & personal viewpoint do violence to the concept and reputation of Wikipedia.
Many books have been written focusing on Paul Robeson's life. Many articles on the Internet discuss Robeson's life and contributions to the fight against racism in the U.S. and in particular his work against the lynching of black people. Other facets of Robeson's life, including the role of McCarthyism in destroying his career, have been deleted from this Wikipedia page and replaced with fringe attacks on his character. None of the books that explore Robeson's life or the mainstream articles on the Internet that describe Robeson's life reflect the vicious slant exhibited in this Wikipedia article. Why is that?

Another example of the false information introduced into this article with the purpose of smearing Robeson is the inclusion of the reference to rightwing Hudson Institute historian Ronald Radosh's book on the Rosenbergs into this article about Paul Robeson. Anyone who checks this book out of any library will quickly find this is not a source of information about Paul Robeson. In 616 pages, there is one reference to Robeson, a footnote on p. 563 directing the reader to a magazine article. The magazine article is a proper reference on the Robeson page. The Radosh book is not. Why let facts get in the way of passionately held opinion?
Here's another fact here that has been suppressed in the near constant series of deletions and reverts.
Despite the aggressive attempts by the folks who edit these page to prove Robeson did nothing on behalf of Feffer, there is evidence to the contrary, but it is not allowed on this page. Now the folks who insist on the false version of events claim Robeson's son backs their account. But he does not. He says exactly the opposite and he says it right here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-6/robeson3.html Robeson Jr. says: What happened to Pfeffer is that he and his colleagues, who had been arrested, survived for three more years. They were finally executed just before the Doctors' Plot in 1952 and one of the reasons that they did survive is that dad followed up by writing a letter direct to Stalin, through diplomatic channels, along with Howard Fast, the famous left-wing writer here and Fredericolio Curie, who was the famous French physicist and a Communist. So it was one of the factors at least which deterred their execution for some time. It's also noteworthy that dad certainly took a risk in that it's inconceivable to me that the release of Pfeffer to come see him was ordered by anybody other than Stalin himself, even the head of the Secret Police, Ben Berria would never have dared to do that without checking with quote the boss.
Like I was saying, the insistence on and aggressive reversions to false information do violence to Wikipedia's credibility.

Before I took an interest in this article, one of the folks with a deep and abiding hatred of fairness and neutrality removed the following sentence : Although Robeson is one of the "Great Forerunners " in Black equality, the McCarthy era virtually erased his memory from the consciousness of younger Americans. He was conversant in over 20 languages, and at one time carried enough clout to be considered for a vice presidential spot on Henry A. Wallace's 1948 ticket. His singing voice was a sonorous bass-baritone once described thus: "If God should come to earth and sing, He would sound something like Paul Robeson."
While I did not write that sentence, its importance is both clear and now suppressed, at least on Wikipedia. The truth of that statement is reflected in all of the biographies of Robeson, and is nowhere explored in this article that is deeply prejudiced toward Robeson. That is why this article is stamped "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." There's a lot more that could make this an outstanding article, because the subject is intriniscally interesting, but I see no point in continuing. Factual contributions are continually reverted and deleted in favor of extreme rightwing ideology. I may stop working on this article except to make certain the stamp "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed" stays on it. That way people who come by will know to go elsewhere for fact.

=30-

skywriter 02:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Where to begin …. You are not going to win any points by labeling Radosh as some right-wing tool. Secondly phrasing Robeson Jr’s “opinion” on the issue as a “fact” is misleading. Robeson Jr obviously has a dog in this fight, in a very personal way, and I am not surprised that he has a more sympathetic view of the situation considering that it involves his father. Feffer was a KGB agent, exactly the reason why he was part of the Jewish Anti-fascist Committee’s WWII overseas delegation, he was tasked with keeping an eye on the delegation, and that included Mikhoels, but to say he helped murder him is borderline slander. As with any historical events inside the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union details do not always line up from account to account, but it appears to me that the most agreed upon scenario is as follows.

Robeson hears of Mikhoels’ suspicious death, asks to see Feffer, Feffer is produced and alludes to what is happening, Robeson makes a mention of Mikhoels at his performance, and denies all of it when he returns to the West.

I would like to see an amicable resolution to this article, something that all parties will find acceptable. I hate leaving it in its current state. With that said, I refuse to allow you to strip this article of anything that might be seen as derogatory to Robeson, he had his critics, and both their viewpoints and credentials are mainstream. Someone who spent the better part of his most productive years defending Soviet slavery and Stalin is not deserving of this level of adulation. Ten Dead Chickens 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, let's try to remember that our opinions about Paul Robeson's actions aren't relevant here. While I suppose airing our relative viewpoints so we know where everyone is coming from is useful to a point, what we're here to do is deal in facts, not opinions. Gamaliel 18:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Suggestions to Resolve Article Issues

Robeson and Feffer

Skywriter--

I agree that Robeson and Feffer were minor figures in each others' lives. I actually have no philosophical objection to removing all references to Feffer from Robeson's page and vice versa. But if the two are going to be referenced in each others' entries, I think that all relevant facts should be included.

It seems to me that your major objections are to (1) the inclusion of Robeson Jr.'s quote that his father kept quiet about Feffer in the West, and (2) to Feffer's condition when he met Robeson while in custody. I think these are both important, and should be retained.

Further, it seems as though you object to references to Robeson's Stalinism, yet you wish to include Robeson's personal appeal to Stalin on Feffer's behalf. I think both are relevent.

Please let me know what other items you find objectionable.

I am more than happy to reach a consensus, and I have no wish to include non-facts in the article. But by the same token, inconvenient facts are still facts.

Shall we continue this on the articles' talk pages? You have my permission to paste this comment there, if you wish.

Best Regards, --Jbull 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Robeson page, the Feffer page

Hi:

For weeks now, I've tried to get you to talk about and eventually reach consensus on the various edits of the Robeson page and now the Feffer page but, usually without discussion on the Talk pages, you delete, erase and revert text and sources that other people including myself add. Maybe I should have come to your Talk page sooner, asking the basis for your activities but I'll tell you this, your behavior sure does feel like harassment, aka wikistalking. Can you/will you put an end to it? I've brought up a series of well-sourced factual matters that you tend to ignore in favor of inserting your strongly held opinion. I know it is not easy to get other people to change an opinion, especially ones that are strongly held, but you know what, the purpose of Wikipedia is to exchange facts, not opinion. So, in that regard, I do not understand what you are doing. I'm asking you to think about the effect of what you're doing in destroying Wikipedia's reputation. Thanks. skywriter 02:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

Skywriter--

I agree that Robeson and Feffer were minor figures in each others' lives. I actually have no philosophical objection to removing all references to Feffer from Robeson's page and vice versa. But if the two are going to be referenced in each others' entries, I think that all relevant facts should be included.

It seems to me that your major objections are to (1) the inclusion of Robeson Jr.'s quote that his father kept quiet about Feffer in the West, and (2) to Feffer's condition when he met Robeson while in custody. I think these are both important, and should be retained.

Further, it seems as though you object to references to Robeson's Stalinism, yet you wish to include Robeson's personal appeal to Stalin on Feffer's behalf. I think both are relevent.

Please let me know what other items you find objectionable.

I am more than happy to reach a consensus, and I have no wish to include non-facts in the article. But by the same token, inconvenient facts are still facts.

Shall we continue this on the articles' talk pages? You have my permission to paste this comment there, if you wish.

Best Regards, --Jbull 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: the following was previously posed on Jbull's Talk page but he deleted it; this convesation is therefore moved to this talk page as a record that this conversation occurred and attempted to describe the controversy existing in the Paul Robeson article.

No, it is much more than you describe, and it is laid out in detail, line by line, on the Robeson Talk page. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Robeson that causes you to scratch, then add false and slanderous information. I wonder what you really know about this man's life. That you have a viewpoint is obvious but is there fact to back up that viewpoint?
Have you heard him sing? Have you read any of his biographies, or his autobiography?
I object to the insertion of false information into this or any article, and to the changing of facts to suit viewpoint. I've tried to be judicious in splicing out the viewpoint and careful to ask about each edit on the Talk page. Instead of responding to the splicing of viewpoint, you revert and revert and revert to viewpoint. For me, the last several weeks with this article have been like Sisyphus rolling the rock up hill.

The Feffer story should be accurate and not blown out of proportion. The crap about the finger nails? Irrelevant to Robeson. That Rapoport, a source you cite, says Feffer was a KGB agent. Jeez. You should have mentioned that. That's a red hot example of letting viewpoint get in the way of a claim by your own source, no less. You lose crediblity there, Jbull. Isn't there a tad of hypocrisy in the insistence that this be included: "Forced to communicate through hand gestures and notes because the room was bugged, Feffer indicated that Mikhoels had been murdered in 1948 by the secret police" when Rapaport, the source you cite, says he found proof Feffer set Mikhoels up to be murdered?
I have no idea what is true in this matter but I do know this: The melodrama belongs on the Feffer page. It is tangential to Robeson's life. But if you want to connect it to Robeson, tell the entire story. Don't skimp on the details about his speaking truth to power before a packed house at the concert hall in Moscow. Duberman describes it in detail as does Lewis in the biographies. That was every bit as powerful an act of defiance as busting out in La Marseillaise, to face down Nazis in Rick's Cafe in Casablanca. I included the Lewis description but, alas, like so much else, it was deleted, reversed or reverted.

On the Robeson Talk page, Jbull, I asked for an explanation of the following and you ignored the request: (I asked for explanation of this: at 8:17 am February 10, 2006 on Robeson Talk page) JBull REMOVED THIS His recording of Ballad for Americans was sung at the 1940 Republican National Convention. [September 26, 1982, The New York Times] He AND THIS: ]. in 1946, he pressed President Truman to act against the lynching of black people, and encouraged black people to fight back to defend themselves.

( Twelve days later, and countless reverts and deletions of my contributions later, I still await explanation for the above edit. What is it? More personal viewpoint? Don't like the second amendment right to bear arms? )

That Robeson spoke truth to power at the concert hall in Moscow in defense of Jewish artists and writers, and to Truman's face in Washington in defense of black people is what reveals his character. It was too easy to criticize Stalin in the United States. He'd get brownie points for that, and maybe the U.S. government would even let him travel. He took up the important stuff directly with the Soviet government in the same way he took up the important directly stuff with the U.S. government. He went mano a mano with Harry Truman in an effort to get Harry to get tough and stop the lynchings. And he did this was while Harry was guarded by gunmen, guns drawn, with their trigger fingers at the ready. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-6/robeson1.html

Robeson and a bunch of other communists, yes communists, appealed directly to Stalin in a letter to let Feffer and other artists live. Robeson Jr. says that bought Feffer four more years. Do you find that fact inconvenient?

You quote Robeson Jr. in tertiary sources or in a venue that's in print but hard to get. (I've asked my library to obtain it.) I cite him directly speaking to the issue at hand in a recent online article on a university web server. What is your objection to sourcing to that?

And by the way, the U.S. government thought it important enough to include on its web page on Robeson that the Republcan Party adopted his singing of Ballad of Americans as the theme for its 1940 convention. Either you or TDC deleted that fact, in another example of inconvenient fact not meshing with viewpoint.

I don't care about Robeson's references to Stalin. Bring it on. I object to using it as a way to lynch him, and I object to repeating what is on a web site, as I repeatedly edited it to the link, and was repeatedly reverted. I object to the deletion of information about why he was attracted to the Soviet system. That's what was deleted and that's what is pissing off people, including me. I object to facts about his life being deleted like the fact that he was a Shakespearian actor, which was deleted today. And the fact that I edited out the that he played a black laborer in Wales. What exactly does anyone expect-- that he would play a green laborer? I object to the steady deletion of biographical details about his life. That is beyond the pale.

For example, either you or TDC removed the following AND substituted interpretive personal viewpoint: Robeson was sympathetic to the Soviet Union because, there, and for the first time in his life, he was not judged by the color of his skin. He sensed a camraderie with Russian folk traditions.

Although he believed that Africa and Asia also had special redeeming features, he was so interested in the minority question in the Soviet Union that he became fluent in Russian. After a trip to Moscow in 1934, the first of several in which he and his wife would be feted, Robeson concluded that the country was entirely free of racial prejudice and that Afro-American spiritual music resonated to Russian folk traditions. Here, for the first time in my life, he said of his stay in Russia, I walk in full human dignity.

New York Times, February 12, 1989

What's so hard to understand? He was a talented guy who went to Europe and Asia where he wasn't treated like crap like he was back home. He liked not being treated like crap.

And then this sentence kept re-appearing despite the appearance that it was ripped from a headline off of the nutwing frontpagemag blog: Prior to his passport's return in 1958, Robeson wrote a book, Here I Stand, which made a case for some system of what would come to be known as affirmative action.
Now whose opinion other than David Horowitz is that? And, does affirmative action refer to the autobiographical chapter called Our Right to Travel in which he makes the case that the U.S. government, wearing the skirts of "democracy," had no more right to stop people from traveling than did the Soviet Union, wearing the skirts of "communism"? Or is it the chapter where he demands that the U.S. stop killing black people and the USSR stop killing Jews? If that is "affirmative action," bring it on.

The entire section about the McCarthy period is one-sided and slanted. Travel bans? Can we talk about South Africa and apartheid? That section of this article reads like the cross-dressing head of the FBI was Mother Theresa, and not the U.S. incarnation of the KGB. You want to make an argument that blacks and reds should not have free speech and it's okay to ban travel? Then make it, by citing sources. Just don't put lipstick on a pig and expect anyone to buy it.

When people edit and write about a subject, readers expect the writer/editor to know and or learn something about the subject. That's the central objection to the way this article reads, and that is why it's got all those stamps on it questioning its facts and POV.

After a vandal hit the page tonight, I give you credit for reverting to the last version by skywriter today and not to junk edits by TDC. That is an act toward consensus, which I was not expecting.

skywriter 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Jbull then chose to withdraw from the conversation, without a detailed response to any of this and instead giving his response at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skywriter

I replied

I just read your latest posting at my user talk page. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I sought consensus. But you have not distinguished between my edits and others', ascribed bad faith to me, and did not reply in a temperate manner. Rather than argue with you, I choose to suspend our discussion.--Jbull 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skywriter"

Thereupon, Ten Dead Chickens stated (above) and repeated here for continuity: I would like to see an amicable resolution to this article, something that all parties will find acceptable. I hate leaving it in its current state. With that said, I refuse to allow you to strip this article of anything that might be seen as derogatory to Robeson, he had his critics, and both their viewpoints and credentials are mainstream. Someone who spent the better part of his most productive years defending Soviet slavery and Stalin is not deserving of this level of adulation. Ten Dead Chickens 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am troubled by User:TDC's strong personal expressions of opinion (such as " I refuse to allow you to strip this article of anything that might be seen as derogatory to Robeson,") and inclusion of false information, wrongly attributed to the Duberman biography. I am also troubled by the many unexplained revisions to this article, and non-factual revisions, such as deleting entire sections, without discussion on this Talk page but instead using derisive terms such as 'spam' or 'fluff' in the Edit Summary. If false information is being taken out, the Edit Summary should say so, and not be disguised as something else or not summarized. The Edit Summary is also not a substitute for Talk Page discussion of proposed changes. I am troubled by the barring from this article material in at least four biographies on Robeson. The controversy over Robeson's solidarity with the Soviet Union should be reflected factually, as should his stated reasons for speaking out in the way that he did, without interpretation by editors with strong opinion. The material on Feffer is overblown and does not reflect what his biographies reported. The non-neutral POV is lacking.
If serious about resolving the differences in this article, and not leaving it in its current state, it appears necessary to seek recourse through Wikipedia channels. Is there a suggestion for doing so? skywriter 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This Article Is A Mess: A Proposal

Paul Robeson was, in no particular order,

1. A great singer,
2. A Communist/Stalinist,
3. A social activist, and
4. A trailblazing athelete and scholar.

The arc of his life, to me, was as follows: Robeson excelled in college academics and athletics, at a time when relatively few other African-Americans attended college. Turning to the world of entertainment, Robeson, a gifted performer, became famous. His stage performances were extremely well received, and several of his performances became iconic. Stung by the daily racism he faced, Robeson, already a socialist, became politically radicalized. Robeson became especially attached to the USSR. He became a lifelong supporter of the Soviet Union and an apologist for Josef Stalin, even after Stalin's atrocities were made public. Because of his Communist ties and radicalism, Robeson was investigated by the FBI and Congress, and had his passport taken away, while his career faltered. Recovering his passport, he moved overseas, where he continued his career. His career never fully recovered, and in his later life he became depressed and died.

Is this that objectionable? Is anything in this untrue? Does this distort his life in some way?

I invite Skywriter, Ten Dead Chickens and other interested parties to draft their own one-paragraph precis of Robeson's life. If we can agree on the outline, we can then draft an article that fairly represents his whole life--the good, the bad and the controversial--Jbull 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be fair. Let's cite our sources. All of us. In the text. And no misleading, biased sentences, no introduction of false statements that support one viewpoint or another. Robeson was controversial. He was not a member of the Communist Party although he was close friends with lots of communists. His story has complexity. Holgate leads the way here by writing carefully documented facts in the Wales segment. skywriter 15:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please post your preferred paragraph outline of Robeson's life. Once we agree on that, we can fill it out and cite away.--Jbull 22:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not restart edit warring

Thank you for suggesting an outline, Jbull but it will not help, not at this point. What will help is for you to answer the many questions from the last four weeks that ask why you erased and reverted factual material aded to this article. This page is littered with those un-answered questions.

There is enough here to suggest we may need the help of Wiki administrators/arbitrators to stop the edit warring. There is plenty of documentation on this page and in the history of this article to suggest that a variety of reasonable editors with no axe to grind have made contributions to this page but have had their contributions deleted, most recently the contributions of Holgate and now, again, some of my own. This must stop. Any editor who has an issue with a particular fact or sentence, can either edit it or discuss it, or talk to the editor/writer on the user talk page. That is the Wiki way, as I understand it. (Please correct if I am wrong.) But wholesale reverts have got to go. It is apparent that a couple of people who have taken a passionate interest in this page hate Robeson, the subject of this article, and have done everything possible, by serial edit warring, to make this article show Robeson in false light. These folks have added statements to the article that have been repeatedly proven false, and yet the same lies keep re-appearing albeit slightly refined, again and then, again. When the statements are proven false, these editors move the goalpost instead of addressing the issue at hand. Falsifying scholarship, introducing false statements, and misrepresenting or outright falsifying what is in history books and biographies severely tests the Wiki goal of assuming good faith.

There are many articles about Paul Robeson on the Internet and in library books. None (except one article and one book, both representing a particular Cold War, rightwing viewpoint) suggests that Stalinism for its own sake was his obsession, and yet we are faced with several people here whose viewpoint it is to insist, with every edit of this article, that "Stalinism" must be the central focus of this article. In the face of the vast scholarship to the contrary, that suggests obsession.

With that aggressive single-mindedness, these editors have systematically deleted biographical facts about Robeson's life that do not support their viewpoint, a viewpoint, which, by the way, does not even appear in the U.S. government pages describing Robeson. Communism and McCarthyism were controversial facts of life in the mid-20th century, and many people's lives and careers were destroyed. There are many sides to those stories. Historians have addressed this, and surely will continue to address it. And yet, certain folks right here on Wikipedia are fighting hard to keep the legacy of this man and this article stuck in a time warp. It is not our job to inflict our personal viewpoints on readers who come to Wikipedia. It is our job to tap the scholarship of others and fairly represent it here. This article suffers foremost from the injection of the Cold War, non-neutral viewpoint that Robeson deserved to be banned from international travel and to have had his career destroyed because he befriended communists. Sorely missing from that analysis is the central focus of Robeson's life --his art, and when he could not sing or act in theaters by walking in the front door, racism slammed him in the face, and his art became political. Robeson lived the majority of his life at a time when segregation was the law of the land in the United States. As I have written elsewhere on this page, his motive was quite simple. He hated being treated like crap, and he liked when he was not treated like crap. He had the talent and wherewithall to get away from the racism, and he did that by going overseas. Robeson, like every black person in the U.S., suffered countless humiliations on a daily basis during the years of segregation and Jim Crow. To ignore this is to ignore history. One of the many contributions to this page that were erased was Robeson's explanation that he felt full human dignity in the Soviet Union, and that is why he sang there and in other countries where he was loved and valued for his art and his principles, and not because of the color of his skin.

Among the many documented facts deleted today (by Jbull) is that the U.S. State Department confiscated Robeson's passport because he spoke out against racism overseas. The previous version contained an undocumented claim that his passport was taken in consort with HUAC. That is just plain false, showing no attention to history or detail or documentation and a lot of attention to viewpoint. Yes, the previous version lacked documentation. The State Department story added today contained explicit documentation. The reversion of this key segment violates many Wiki rules, suggesting, once again that it really is time to bring in whatever arbitration mechanism exists at Wikipedia.

The issue before anyone interested in contributing to this article is whether it will continue to be hijacked by a couple of individuals who have no interest in the topic except to slander the man, and whose central contributions are to revert the contributions of other editors so that there is no change, no progress. This has been ongoing for too long now. I was very patient about it last month, and was careful not to revert. Time has come to stand up for Wikipedia rules. It is an abomination that the carefully documented work by Holgate last night (in the Wales segment) was reverted tonight by Jbull without discussion, and without an edit summary. I am not experienced with Wiki arbitration but see no way to make progress on this article without some standard of conduct and scholarship. The standard I am suggesting is that this article can and should reflect the wealth of documentation by serious scholars in the many books written about Robeson and articles, even on the Internet where Googling turns up many balanced articles about his life. It is not difficult to achieve a balanced article but it does take the desire to do so. skywriter 01:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the section on Robeson's association and relationship with Wales because it appears to be one of the least controversial, or at least the most obvious demonstration of arbitrary banner-slapping and a double-standard in demanding citations. Neither the basic chronology nor the ongoing regard for Robeson in Wales is in question, and while my edits doubtless can be tweaked, subjecting them to wholesale deliberate reverts (if that has happened; the history isn't clear) suggests a lack of seriousness towards creating a balanced article. Right now, there appears to be too much emphasis on hamstringing any attempts to do that. Holgate 12:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the fascination Jbull has with revert wars? He makes no contributions to the article but likes erasing the contributions of others. skywriter 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make this matter any more contentious than it already does, and please refrain from describing the edits of others as "vandalism". Thank you. Gamaliel 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When someone erases the work of another without explanation, it is vandalism. What would you call it? skywriter 04:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing. If you disagree with the edit, ask for an explanation, please do not make accusations. Let's not escalate this already contentious edit war. Gamaliel 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not an edit: it is an erasure of large tracts of text added yesterday without an edit sumamry and without a discussion on the Talk page, both of which have been requested multiple times on this Talk page. This page is filled with multiple requests asking for explanations of erasures throughout the month of February. Those requests have been mostly ignored. For the record, I went to the user's page, spent a lot of time going over the details of the erasures, and instead of replying, the user chose to erase the request for explanation. The pattern is evident: make no contributions, erase other people's work.

I would like to know why people who don't contribute to this article are monitoring it for the sole purpose of erasing the work of others. What has been added is mainstream. It is documented, and reflects what is said in the biographies of Robeson and on the many Internet pages about him. When text and documentation is erased without explanation, what is it but vandalism? skywriter 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I will ask Jbull to explain these reverts here. Let's give him a chance to respond. Gamaliel 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that peace has been achieved on the WEB DuBois page and the result is a decent article. DuBois was every bit as controversial as Robeson yet the controversy in the life of DuBois is handled in a straight forward, factual manner without accentuating it, and without leaving it out. DuBois and Robeson were contemporaries who led parallel lives in the controversial respects. skywriter 06:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my proposal above, which suggested that all interested parties agree on an outline for the article before wholesale edits were made. Rather than contribute to this discussion, certain parties chose to repeat the same contentious edits. These non-discussed edits were reverted. The only way to get a good article is to agree beforehand on what it should say.--Jbull 16:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

While it is a good idea to discuss cotnentious edits ahead of time, it is not a requirement. You should not simply revert every single non-discussed edit without discussion yourself. Gamaliel 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Robeson and the Soviet Union

I did a general cleanup on Skywriter's latest version of this section. I tried to preserve the information therein, while adhering to encyclopedic format. Skywriter--please review this section. Thanks,--Jbull 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

HUAC

Skywriter--

Why did you remove the section on Robeson's investigation by HUAC and his refusal to deny that he was a Communist?--Jbull 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

replying to request for comment

Can each side briefly present their case in one paragraph, backed up with diffs, authoritative sources, and grounded in policy? Then I could help establish a fair decision(I have no opinion on this guy, just on Wikipedia policy). Thanks, --Urthogie 08:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The same. I have no particular interest in Robeson, but I'd like to help resolve this: it's obvious that a lot of people have put a lot of effort into the acticle and it would be nice to work this out. --MattShepherd 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My case is presented above, in the form of a suggested outline for Robeson's entry:

Paul Robeson was, in no particular order,

1. A great singer,
2. A Communist/Stalinist,
3. A social activist, and
4. A trailblazing athelete and scholar.

The arc of his life, to me, was as follows: Robeson excelled in college academics and athletics, at a time when relatively few other African-Americans attended college. Turning to the world of entertainment, Robeson, a gifted performer, became famous. His stage performances were extremely well received, and several of his performances became iconic. Stung by the daily racism he faced, Robeson, already a socialist, became politically radicalized. Robeson became especially attached to the USSR. He became a lifelong supporter of the Soviet Union and an apologist for Josef Stalin, even after Stalin's atrocities were made public. Because of his Communist ties and radicalism, Robeson was investigated by the FBI and Congress, and had his passport taken away, while his career faltered. Recovering his passport, he moved overseas, where he continued his career. His career never fully recovered, and in his later life he became depressed and died.

Is this that objectionable? Is anything in this untrue? Does this distort his life in some way?

I invite Skywriter, Ten Dead Chickens and other interested parties to draft their own one-paragraph precis of Robeson's life. If we can agree on the outline, we can then draft an article that fairly represents his whole life--the good, the bad and the controversial--Jbull 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This invitation for consensus has been rejected.

The crux of the disagreement appears to be over how much of Robeson's Communist sympathies and enthusiastic support of Stalin and the USSR to include in his entry. This support caused Robeson to be investigated by HUAC, the FBI and the State Department, and the resulting controversy helped stifle his career. A very well-balanced view of Robeson's complex life is here: [12]. Please note that it does not shy away from discussing Robeson's controversial political life.--Jbull 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please supply a source that proves his stalinist connections and support for the USSR? Thanks for the cooperation and work towards consensus,--Urthogie 22:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Here's a start: [13][14][15][16]

--Jbull 20:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, excellent sources. Am I right to say that the editors on both sides of the dispute here recognize his connection to Stalinism?--Urthogie 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a safe assumption. The dispute appears to be over how much to emphasise that aspect of his life (as opposed to cultural accomplishments, etc.) and how to discuss particular instances related to his connection to the USSR (Feiffer, for example). Gamaliel 20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment. It is my contention that Robeson's radical politics are an integral part of his life, interfering with and ultimately overshadowing his artistic endeavors. As for Feffer, I stated that, as far as I was concerned, we could entirely remove the Feffer references from Robeson's article, but if Feffer was mentioned, the story should be told warts and all. This suggestion was also rejected.--Jbull 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Is it agreed upon that his connection to the USSR deserves a section of its own in this article, and that it is indeed notable?--Urthogie 20:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is notable, and that it deserves its own section.--Jbull 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there parties who would oppose its inclusion as a section, or would claim that it is not notable?--Urthogie 20:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of no party that objects to an inclusion of a section referring to Robeson and the Soviet Union. However, User:Skywriter may have an opinion on the content of that section. Further, User:Skywriter has objected to the inclusion of a section on Robeson's investigation by the HUAC and other information about Robeson's political attachments. I believe that User:Skywriter can best explain his objections.--Jbull 21:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a request for their opinion on their talk page. The goal here should be to include all relevant, notable information in such a way that all statements of fact are put in context, and all claims are sourced.--Urthogie 21:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that User:Jbull appears to have driven away editors willing to clean up this article, and that User:Jbull can best explain his motivation for doing so.Holgate 02:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Question re: travel ban

Quick question for y'all...this article says the travel ban against Robeson was lifted in 1958, but he performed in two Canadian cities (Sudbury and Toronto) in 1956. Was he just flouting the ban at that point, or was the enforcement being loosened up, or is there actually an error in the date? If anybody could clarify, thanks. Bearcat 04:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I've found clarification — it has to do with the fact that travel from the US to Canada didn't require passports; the US government took different measures to prevent him from travelling to Canada on other occasions but didn't take them before the 1956 concerts. Bearcat 05:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Robeson - a Critical View of an Exceptionally Talented Man

In children's stories there are totally pure and totally evil characters. The adult version is generally different. So it is with Paul Robeson.

He had many exceptional qualities. He was also part of a system which according to Harvard Press "Black Book of Communism" murdered about 94 million people, mostly in China and the Soviet Union. Some people think the numbers are understated.

He was a dedicated and willing propagandist of the Soviet Union and its colonies and affiliates That is not something one can gloss over, despite the fact that Mao Tze Tung's and Stalin's name and Red China and the USSR are still viewed positively by many despite the enormous scale of atrocities. The fact is that in the tear and blood filled twentieth century Mao was the leading torturer and murderer and Stalin was next in line. Even Hitler came after them. Inevitably the two malignant offshoots of Socialism: National Socialism (Nazism) and Communism are closely related. The great toll in suffering and life in the twentieth century was not due to fascism of the "right" but fascism of the "left". Tzarist Russia was a model democratic and humane state in comparison to excesses of the Soviet Union.

It is not to be forgotten that in 1939 Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union were allies and co-rapists of Poland, that the USSR attacked Finland, where it was defeated, and the Baltic states which it then annexed.

Despite Robeson's many exceptional qualities he was a propagandist for the USSR, which is not different than being a propagandist for the Nazis.

It is laudable that he would seek to advance the rights of colored people in the USA, yet doing that at the expense of international Communism's enslaved victims can not be excused. Robeson also falsified facts about the Hungarian revolution in which the "proletariat", students and Hungary's army fought against the Soviet colonizers and oppressors.

Considering the aggressive acts and intents of the Soviet Union toward the West even after Stalin's death Robeson's unbounded allegiance to Communism turned him into an enemy of democracy and freedom, and a traitor to his country. This in unfortunate since a man with his talents and idealism could have achieved much that was positive and could have provided a truly positive role model for people of all races.

It is puzzling that a man whose father was a slave would willingly become the slave of Communism and be willing to propagandize at the expense of enslavement of massive numbers of people whose suffering and death toll far exceeded victims of slavery in America.

Those who understand Robeson's voluntary servitude and actions as a Soviet propagandist are no different than those who understand people who became Nazi sympathizers and propagandists - perhaps for idealistic reasons just like many people were initially motivated to become Mao's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's and other communist dictators' willing torturers and executioners. Idealism without taking a balanced view and insistence on truthfulness and abhorrence of double standards can become extremely dangerous and destructive.

"Idealist" western Communists who were asked how they can support the murderous Communist regimes often responded with a slogan "If you make an omelette you have the break the egg". On the altar of "equality" and other slogans tens of millions can be readily sacrificed. The infatuated "idealist" quickly becomes a fundamentalist and soon intellectually overdoses on the worst kinds of ideologies which may sound Utopian in rhetoric but are anything but ideal or humane in reality.

A counter example to Paul Robeson is Joan Baez, another great American singer, who in the 1960-s was outspoken against the Vietnam War but after learning about the horrors perpetrated by the North Vietnamese she went on record deploring that terror - which few so called "liberals" and of the "left" cared to do. It is unfortunate that Paul Robeson did not act with the same integrity as Joan Baez.

Paul Robeson chose not to speak about the fate of Michoels and Feffer after he returned to the safety of the United States. He was a Communist propagandist and apologist, a denier of the Hungarian revolution and was willing to accept the slavery of tens of millions in the Communist international imperialist empire.

Tragically he became a willing slave of the most murderous and oppressive system.

These are stains on his character.

In is also remembered that he was dedicated to improve the lot of America's underprivileged colored people. Also, early in the Holocaust and touched by the Jews' tragedy Paul Robeson sang a moving song: "Kaddish". He also sang sensitive renditions of Yiddish songs and, of course, beautiful songs rooted in black culture. His many talents in study, sports and other fields was exceptional and in many ways his friendship with Michoels and Feffer (leaders of the war time Soviet Anti-Fascist League) was laudable, but unfortunately compromised by his unshaken worship of Communism.

He was, like some others, exceptionally gifted but with tainted greatness.

LPfeffer April 16, 2006

---

User 85.130.148.121 aka currently calling self LPfeffer:

I recall no reference to Robeson in Black Book of Communism.

What page(s) mention him? Thanks. skywriter 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend to imply that he was mentioned in the Black Book of Communism. The reference was an meant to show what a dark and siniter system Paul Robeson chose to be enslaved to. R.J. Rommel has much higher estimates of International Communism's democide in [17] Table: "20th century democides causing more than one million deaths". Extract follows. LPfeffer April 22, 2006

Democide estimates of 20th century Communism From Death by Government, Rummel, 1987 [18]. Several estimates have been revised after this date [19] [20] [21].

Cambodia	1975-1979	2,035,000
China (PRC)	1949-1987	73,277,000
China (Mao Soviets)	1923-1949	3,465,000
Poland	1945-1948	1,585,000
North Korea	1948-1987	1,563,000
Vietnam	1945-1987	1,670,000
Yugoslavia (Tito)	1944-1987	1,072,000
U.S.S.R	1917-1987	61,911,000

It is not clear why the above is posted here. Are you sure you have the right page? Your claim that Robeson is somehow linked to or responsible for the deaths of all these people-- is that your opinion or is there a citation? Wishing someone said something we wanted said seems to be where this originates. Have you read any of the biographies of Robeson or the tens of thousands of web pages on him? Most are excellent, much better in fact than this Wikipedia article. skywriter 03:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The above table, etc. is in response to your question to me about "The Black Book of Communism". The table is included only because this is discussion page and to further illustrate that due the immense death toll and suffering being a Communist was just like being a Nazi - regardless of idealism. This is what even the conservative estimate of 94 million victims of international Communism says with clarity. The R.J. Rommel estimates speak even louder. It is important to emphasize the terrible toll international Communism took and the collective guilt of Communists - since it is generally perceived that Communism just "didn't work well", that "there were some mistakes", etc. Due to the magnitude of suffering much sharper analysis and condemnation is required. If Germans are collectively responsible for the Holocaust and were "Hitler's willing executioners", then Communists were/are "Mao's and Stalin's willing executioners". We can't have a double standard. The Germans committed horrible crims, but after they were defeated they did much soul searching, held tribunals and paid financial and moral reparations. The Communists did none of this. Because of this people like Paul Robeson don't appear to be tainted by Communism's massive crimes. Not surprisingly, important lessons were not learned and there is a glaring category mistake: Communists not being placed in the same category as Nazis or at least like Nazi sympathizers.

The fact that Paul Robeson was a highly visible spokesperson for Communism makes him a partner in its guilt - much as if he was a highly visible and outspoken American Nazi he would be tainted by Nazi Germany's crimes - even if he didn't go on record supporting the Nazi genocide. The fact that he chose to be a "Hungarian Revolution Denier" puts him in yet another seedy category.

Due to very skilful "marketing" the Communist system still has a positive after-glow, and mass murderers like Mao and Stalin are not regarded to be "evil" or as "evil" as Hitler, when in fact they orchestrated murder on a far greater scale. Many if not most people see in the Soviet Union a victim of Nazi aggression and THE victor of the war, whereas in reality the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies, co-rapists of Poland, the Soviet Union was THE aggressor against Finland and the Baltic states, etc. and due its various policies had about 40% or so of all World War II casualties. Along with Red China it was a society where life was cheper than cheap. Since Communist doesn't have the same evil connotation as Nazi, Stalin and Lenin sound much more positive than Hitler, and Soviet Union doesn't have the negative ring of Nazi Germany it is important to go beyond words and state the grim but soulless statistics.

Whereas I have admiration for much of what Paul Robeson did and surely for his singing, it must be crystal clear to what an evil ideology and practice he was loyal, that he voluntarily returned to be a slave on a long leash (to the Soviet regime), and that he was a vocal and effective propagandists and apologist for a new class of slave owners: the Communists who enslaved far more people and with greater cruelty than the planatation owners.

Based on your advice I will do some more reading on Paul Robeson.

LPfeffer April 22, 2006

Introducing Error

21:32, June 6, 2006 JohnFlaherty (He was a communist. This is not in doubt by any means.) has twice placed Robeson in the "communist" category. A review of this page, and any of his multiple biographies demonstrate this to be a false statement. Please do not introduce error into the article. All claims must be verifiable. Thanks. Skywriter 23:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the man was a Communist. He was a recipient of the Stalin Peace award. He was, by his own admission, a life-long friend of the Soviet Union and Communism.

Really, I mean come on. (The above comment was written by Gamaliel.)

No it was not. Gamaliel 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gamaliel, Albert Einstein accepted the Stalin Peace Prize. Does that make him communist? (Robeson and Einstein were friends and sponsors of a large pro-Soviet rally in Madison Square Garden.) Read his biographies to understand why he supported the Soviet Union. In summary, he felt accepted there, for the first time in his life. He was recognized there as the great artist he was, and treated equally with other artists of his stature. He contrasted that with life in the United States where lynching of black people was still flagrant. He lived under Jim Crow laws for 80 percent of his life and perceived, rightly or wrongly, that the Soviet Union was making a real attempt to fight discrimination. That was the basis of his praise for the Soviet Union. They treated him decently, and he was treated badly in the U.S. He was unwavering in the fight against discrimination. That was his fight. Skywriter 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Winning an award does not make one a Communist. Being a life-long friend of Communism does not make one a Communist. For the purposes of a category, Robeson's communism needs to first be established in the article. -Will Beback 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am stupified by the willful dismissal of the obvious.

Hitler was not at the Wannsee Conference. Does that mean he did NOT advocate the "Final Solution"?--JohnFlaherty 23:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an odious and unfair comparison.

Robeson was definitely sympathetic to Communism and was at least a fellow traveller as he generally supported Communist Party campaigns and positions. Personally, I think he probably was a member of the Communist Party but my personal assumptions are irrelvent. I know that it has been denied he was a member so is there any actual proof?

As for inclusion in the cat Category:Communists I don't think one has to be an actual card-carrying member of the Communist Party to be a Communist. Is there clear evidence that Robeson was a Communist by ideology even if he wasn't an actual party member? I think one can call him a socialist without controversy and include him in Category:Socialists at the very leastHomey 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Like anything on Wikipedia, we need verifiable sources for disputed material. Deciding on our own that the subject belonged to a particular party is "original research". If we can find a biography, etc, that calls him a communist then that'd be different. -Will Beback 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Robeson called himself a socialist (recollection, I don't have a citation at hand); I don't know that he ever called himself a communist - large C or small C. I agree without a citation he shouldn't be listed. Homey 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The comparison is niether odious nor unfair. The man was awilling participant in the coverup of numerous communist crimes. He was an advocate of a system that claimed 20-100 million lives. Joseph Goebbels was only a propagandist as well.

However, I will not revert back to the previous entry until and unless I can locate some sources to cite. --JohnFlaherty 11:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Robeson’s FBI file stated that he was a member of the CPUSA although his party name was “John Thomas” and not Paul Robeson Paul Robeson: Essays on His Life and Legacy Manning Johnson testified in front of Congress that Robeson was a CPUSA member. Robeson took the 5th when asked about Johnsons testimony. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you TDC. I think that is more than sufficient to place a link --JohnFlaherty 15:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

An accusation is not proof. A refusal to answer a question that was none of the government's business is also not proof. Careful work by biographers who explored the question is proper citation. His biographers say he was not a member of the Communist Party. What is unclear about that? Also, Wikipedia redirects Stalin Peace Prize to Lenin Peace Prize because, as the article explains, the name of the award was changed after Kruschev. And, as our article points out, all of the award recipients were asked to return the prize. Each was re-issued in its stead the Lenin Peace Prize. In the interest of precision, this article should reflect that, as well. Skywriter 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It was the Stalin Peace Prize when he won it. The name is mentioned in the Lenin Peace Prize entry.

An accusation by the FBI and a 5th amendment denial adds to the enormous evidence that he was, at the very least, a Communist sympathizer. That is relevant information for his entry.--JohnFlaherty 17:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Okay, that's enough edit warring people. I've already seen at least one 3rr violation, which I am willing to overlook. So we can either: 1) discuss it here and come to a consensus, at which point I will unlock the article or 2) you can angrily denounce me for whatever, at which point I will unlock the article and block the 3rr violators. Gamaliel 17:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that at all. Let's discuss.

Why it is innapropriate to add comments addressing Robeson's Communist sympathies when he clearly was a Communist or at least a Communist sympathizer? How is that NOT relevant to an entry on Paul Robeson?--JohnFlaherty 17:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The name of the prize was officially changed; the recipients were asked to return the award and they were re-issued new awards after it was renamed. Factually, the Stalin Prize was withdrawn and Lenin Prize re-issued. That is fact, and it is reported in the Wikipedia article on the award.

An accusation by the FBI is an accusation. It is proof of nothing, even in a court of law. FBI agents made lots of claims about lots of people during those hearings. Many of their claims were proven to be false, and based on slim to no evidence. Many books have been written about the quality of the McCarthy and HUAC hearings. Both sets of hearins have been discredited and they are viewed as a dark period, a disgrace to democracy. You are attempting to introduce biased, unsourced independent research. Using proper citations would make your entries noncontroversial. What is your objection to using any of the major studies of Robeson's life to source what you introduce into this article. Skywriter 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What is a fact is that he won the "Stalin Peace Prize". It was recalled and reissued because they tried to disconnect themselves from the brutality of Stalin. I have no problem mentioning that the awards were renamed but he WON the Stalin Peace Prize LATER renamed.

I have no objections to using sources. I did use sources. I also said it was an accusation. What is your objection to citing that he was accussed of being a Communist by the FBI and testified before Congress on the matter? That is relevant information in a Robeson bio. I am not trying to intoduced biased, unsourced, orginial research. Stop libeling me please. You are trying to exclude relevant information. What biases do you have? He was accussed of being a Communist. He spent his whole activist life speaking about how wonderful Communism, Stalin, and the USSR were. To ignore this as if it did not happen is ridiculous. --JohnFlaherty 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) The CPUSA certainly thinks so

• Like Du Bois, Robeson's understanding of the fight for equality evolved as he matured and took on an increasingly radical and working-class trajectory. Indeed, a sign of the genius of both men was that the older they grew, the more revolutionary they became. In the case of both (Du Bois and Robeson), maturity meant an embracing of the concepts of Marxism-Leninism and scientific socialism. Maturity led both to the working class and the Communist Party.

• Because of the extreme repression of the McCarthy period, Robeson was not able to publicly announce the nature of his association with the Communist Party.
• We cannot allow them to turn Robeson into an ordinary liberal. The real Robeson was no liberal - he was a freedom fighter, a revolutionary, a Communist, a 20th century giant.
• The freedom movement led by Robeson was centered in the working class, the true emancipator of modern society. As a Communist, Robeson knew the working class was the locomotive of history.

Relevant sections copied from The People's Weekly World, March 1998. I would also like to add that the informant, Manning Johnson, signed an affidavit and testified in front of congress. Although Robeson denied his party membership, he refused to sign the affidavit. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Excellent citation.

Can we NOW agree on the obvious...that a refence to Robeson's Communist connections is appropriate? We can specify that he never publically admitted to being one.--JohnFlaherty 20:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is the dispute here? That the article discuss his invovlement with communism? That, to me, seems a clear cut yes. That the article definitively label him a communist and include him in a category? That, to me, seems less clear cut. Gamaliel 20:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. As I suggest, we can mention that he was a sympathizer or fellow traveller but never publically admitted to being an actual card carrying Communist. It will be the truth and we can then justify the link to Category:American communists which is the main issue.--JohnFlaherty 20:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate JohnFlaherty's enthusiasm, The People's Weekly World is hardly a reputable source. It would be fair to include a discussion of his activities in support of Communist Party initiatives in the context of his lifelong goal to destroy segregation. Biographer Martin Duberman wrote on p. 253 As early as January 1941, special agents were reporting to FBI headquarters in Washington that Robeson was "reputedly a member of the Communist Party" (which he was not, and never would be. Skywriter 02:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Being a sympathizer or fellow traveller would not be sufficient to apply the category. Being a dues- paying or self-declared member would be sufficient. Are we saying that the CPUSA is a reliable source? -Will Beback 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On issues regarding CPUSA membership, why arent they reliable? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If his biographer says he wasn't a member of the communist party, that seems pretty definative. Gamaliel 03:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not patronize me Skywriter. It seems clear that we are going to choose to ignore the mountains of evidence that suggest he was a Communist based on the fact that he never publically admitted it. I cannot believe that. Alger Hiss's entry has "Soviet Spy" listed even though he never publically admitted that either. Robeson took the 5th. We must at least list in the introduction that he was a Communist sympathizer. A fellow traveller. THAT I would hope is beyond dispute.--JohnFlaherty 11:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who are some of the people who have been members of the CPUSA?
• Paul Robeson, athlete, scholar, actor, singer, activist, and much more.

My personal favorite

• Doesn't Communism stifle creativity?

• The best answer to this is to list some of the major cultural figures of the last century who were Communists: Sean O’Casey, Pablo Neruda, Nazim Hikmet, Paul Robeson, Nicholas Guillen, Mikail Sholokov, David Siqueros, Picasso, Bertolt Brecht, Tina Modotti, and many more.

from the CPUSA's faq page So we have an admission from the CPUSA, an FBI informant, sworn testimony and a signed affidavit that says Robeson was in the CPUSA. We also have Margaret Burham, Lloyd L. Brown and Victor Navasky who confrim this as well. On the other hand we have his biographer who says that he probably was not a member. Seems pretty overwhelming to me. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC) So where do we currently stand on this?--JohnFlaherty 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I listened to the Democracy Now link. User:TDC| misstates what Burham, Brown and Navasky said. Skywriter 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how, or should we guess?--JohnFlaherty 20:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well? We are not even discussing anymore?--JohnFlaherty 17:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have found that many of these disputes can be best resolved by offering proposed entries on the issue at hand and commenting/editing them on the talk pages. Would someone like to offer a proposed change to the intro and other relevant areas so we can discuss?--JohnFlaherty 23:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since discussion seems to have trailed off, I'm unlocking the page, but I will relock if the edit war starts again. Gamaliel 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now hold on! By simply ignoring posts and refusing to discuss they win? Is that what is assumed?--JohnFlaherty 16:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles are not intended to be locked to editing indefinately. If there is no discussion ongoing to resolve the underlying conflict, I don't see any reason to keep the article locked. I don't see how you interpret that as a "win" for someone else, nor should you be looking at this as a matter of "winning" or "losing". It's not a game or a contest. Gamaliel 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew someone would latch onto that word. "Win" the argument is all I meant. I retract it. With all due respect I do not need a lecture about the nature of editing. I am well aware this is not a "game". If I thought that I would not be wasting my time trying to see that the facts are properly displayed. The fact of the matter is that discussion stalled because the other side had no compelling reason to continue it when the article was protected with their version in place.--JohnFlaherty 17:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that the article is unlocked, they have a compelling reason to continue the discussion, no? So what's the problem? Gamaliel 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever.--JohnFlaherty 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the article to address the Stalin Peace Prize (which IS what he was awarded) and mentioned that it was later re-named the Lenin Peace Prize. I mentioned that the Communist Party claims him as a member.--JohnFlaherty 16:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC) What is this doing in the lead? Paul Robeson (April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was a multi-lingual American actor, athlete, bass-baritone concert singer, writer, radical civil rights activist, laureate of the Stalin Peace Prize (later renamed the Lenin Peace Prize) and a member of the Communist Party according to the Communist Party USA, though Robeson himself never confirmed nor denied that he was a Communist. [1] It looks very much like an attempt to trash the legacy of Paul Robeson for the purpose of pushing personal viewpoint. This summary does not even begin to explain who Robeson was, his life, or legacy. It is unlike any of the many biographies written about him. It is unlike the many articles written about him (more than a million) on the Internet. It ignores what his first biography says, which is quoted earlier in this thread-- that he was not a member of any political party, that he was primarily an artist, and it ignores that he fought hard to end the many lynchings of black people that were taking place all over the United States right up to within 10 years of the end of his life. It ignores that he lived the majority of his life (80 percent) as a second class citizen, not because of his political beliefs but because of the color of his skin in a legally segregated country. This is what mattered to him. I sincerely hope that people who want to read an honest article about this man's life will go elsewhere, and not read this article on Wikipedia that presents him in a false light. Thanks to the most recent edits, and the edits by those who for many months have been fighting to distort Robeson's legacy and to leave out what was wrongly done to him by his own government, this Wikipedia article now depicts the false, distorted but militant anti-communist, red-baiting, racist viewpoint that was popular within the FBI in the 1950s but is rejected by most historians today (except the most extreme rightwing). Red-baiting racism made its first show in Robeson's life in Peekskill, NY, and shows itself again today as it has won the day at Wikipedia, at least in this article where Wikipedia distorts history for the purpose of pushing an extremist personal viewpoint. This s a sad day for Wikipedia. People who support neutrality and fairness in presentation can only hope that readers will find it elsewhere. I note also that earlier in the struggle to make this an honest article, it was noted that Robeson's signature song, Ballad for Americans was sung at both the Communist Party and the Republican political conventions in 1940, and that this fact was deleted by someone interested in showing a distorted view of who Robeson was. Wikipedia ideal is to assume good faith. When editors break the faith by distorting the truth, the ideal is smashed. Skywriter 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1) Not a single word that was added is factually incorrect.

2) All of the points that you believe are important about Paul Robeson's life are still covered in the article. Indeed, they represent the overwhelming bulk of the content.

3) There are other aspects of his life that need to be portrayed as well. Hero worship of the man, as well as POV, emotional attempts at intimidating those who wish to tell the whole truth should not be tolerated.

The man was a vociferous defender of one of the most evil murderers on the planet, Joseph Stalin, a man in the same league as Adolph Hitler. He was a supporter of one of the most oppressive, inhuman, and brutal governments in history, the U.S.S.R. He was involved in the whitewashing of many of the crimes of the U.S.S.R.

There should be a whole SECTION devoted to the exploration of these aspects of his life and you take issue with two FACTUAL comments in the opening sentence? heck, I did not even add the link to the Communist party in the Category section at the bottom of the site since it cannot be backed up by his admission.

You accuse me of bad faith? You are the one executing bad faith. You are trying to intimidate people to ignore the FACTS because they do not fit with your view of the man. No one else is doing that.--JohnFlaherty 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Point by point: 1. Deep Distortion of what is true. Discards biographers in favor of ONE postmortem claim by political party that benefits from the association. Discards Robeson Jr. who has written the first half of a two part biography and who accompanied his father everyday for last 20 years of his life-- he says his dad was not CP member, and has said so publicly. All this is discarded in favor of putting questionable slander in the lead? DISGUSTING. 2. They are not covered. The biographies are not hero worship. No reviewer has ever said that of any of them. Again, you push falsehoods to put forward your narrow POV and a deeply prejudiced one at that. Your statements in 2. are so far false, they bear no relationship to this article. You offer no evidence. What you have written is guided not by deep knowledge of the subject of this article but by your personal hatred for whatever was the Soviet Union, US ally and winner of the war against Nazism on the Eastern Front at the cost of many Soviet lives. Your hatred of the Soviet Union clouds your vision and you have brought your hatred of what was the Soviet Union, all the good and the bad about it, and claim it was all bad, and then you use that to slander Robeson. You distort who he was because of your lack of knowledge and refusal to honestly study the subject. You bring no information about the subject of this article to this writing, only your hatred. You see only in black and white, refusing to recognize the gray areas. Here's news: all of life is ambiguity. What you have writtne bears no relationship to the life Robeson lived. This article is deeply racist, and it distorts the body of knowledge about this man. It slanders his legacy. It is the worst article on the Internet on Paul Robeson. There are many good articles. I hope readers find them. You shame the Wikipedia community by pushing prejudice. Robeson was the victim of prejudice all his life. To see it re-incarnated here is shameful. Skywriter 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comments show how unhinged you are. They are an emotional rant and nothing more. People defend Hitler and the Nazis as well. Your entire position is pure POV. Further, pulling out the "race card" is disgusting. Despicable sir. The last refuge of a man clearly losing the argument. You know nothing about me. I am no racist sir. I also do not hide behind a pen name. I use my own. What you did could be called libel. It is certainly a violation of Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" guidlines.

By the way, since you have not a shred of evidence to back any of you're accusations, and you just accused every editor who approves of this entry of being racist, would you care to explain how anything you object to is "racist"?

I eagerly await your reply.--JohnFlaherty 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's all dial it back please. Ideally we should recruit some dispassionate, objective editors, but until they show up, we will have to do. John Flaherty, you must realize that your strong feelings on the matter may color your judgement about the article and that people who do not share your viewpoint are not necessarily guilty of "hero worship". Skywriter, JF's strong feelings on this matter probably to not derive from racism and I'm sure that he probably has similar feelings about white leftists. Please refrain from playing the race card. Now there is no question that Robeson's involvment with communism should and will be discussed in the article. The question is in what manner we will discuss it. The introduction as it stands is clearly inappropriate and while I don't agree with everything he's said, on this matter he is correct. A discussion of what he was a member of and when he was a member of it and what he confirmed and what he denied does not belong in the introduction, it should be discussed later in the article. Authorative sources, such as his biographers, should be used and not the claims of random webpages, nor should inferences be drawn from what he did not say or did not deny. I haven't the slightest idea whether or not he was a card-carrying communist, but the question will be answered by appropriate sources that meet WP standards of verifiability. Gamaliel 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My strong feeling color MY judgement but not Skywriter's his? I am biased but when I accusse him of hero worship I am wrong again? Did you actually read his rant? You imply he is a calm NPOV editor on this point and I am out of line? I don't disagree in principal with what you suggest as far as moving on but your comments were totaly innapropriate and unfair. I am no more biased than he is, nor than the people who refuse to acknowledge REALITY. The man was an apologist for Joseph Stalin and the U.S.S.R. If he was an apologist for Hitler & the Nazis's this conversation would not be taking place. he would be, appropriately, labeled as a Nazi sympathizer.--JohnFlaherty 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How on earth is chastizing someone for playing the race card "imply[ing] he is a calm NPOV editor"? Gamaliel 23:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I guess I read too much into your commets. I apologize. --JohnFlaherty 23:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Magazine

Wasn't there a magazine entitled "freedom" that Paul Robeson had something to do with? I've seen it stated in many articles but can never find concrete information about it.

It was called 'FREEDOM WAYS"

Duberman on Robeson and the communist party

"[h]e was never a member of the CPUSA, never a functionary, never a participant in its daily bureaucratic operations." - page 418 - and told HUAC during his testimony that he was "not a communist" - page 308. Whatever the claims of the CPUSA webpage, I think this is pretty conclusive from a legitimate source. I'm going to revert the changes to the introduction based on this. Gamaliel 19:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Robeson was worse than a communist

Millions had to join the Communist party to survive. Robeson was a free man, he came and went to the Soviet Union and accepted the regime. Xx236 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Robeson said he admired Stalin for the decisive role the Soviet leader played in encouraging national minorities

Stalin expelled national minorities and ordered mass executions. Xx236 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that quote? Blueshoc12 15:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to find one because it is a very well known fact. It's mentioned many places in Wikipedia for a startPiccadilly 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean that Stalin did that, I meant a source for the quote that Robeson admired Stalin. Blueshoc12 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag - Robeson defies Stalin

This section makes it sound like the only grounds for considering Robeson naive about Stalin were on account of anti-Semitism, but he was actually being naive about a man who murdered millions, some on ethnic grounds, some for religion, some for political reasons, some out of sheer paranoia. Piccadilly 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone give me fair explination for why the prize he won is refered to as the Lenin peace prize? It was renamed that, and this point can be mentioned, but the price he WON was the Stalin peace prize yes?

POV tag - Robeson prepared the path for the civil rights movement -- Keep the mess and see the man

Before they were married, my parent went to hear Paul Robeson in Liverpool when he was giving concerts in support of those fighting in the Spanish civil war. I grew up listening to Paul Robeson on the radio. When I came to the United States as Fulbright scholar in the sixties and discovered that he had been rejected in his own country, it was a shock. Anybody who reads his letter to the children of Little Rock can get the measure of the man.

After being here for over 40 years, and after reading a little more, it seems to me that Paul Robeson laid the ground work for Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. His record deserves a very thorough investigation. He might then gain the stature he merits as a leader for everybody's civil rights.

This article IS a mess, but it is a wonderful mess and it needs to stay here for an extended period. It is time for it all to come out. A token postage stamp is not sufficient. (EAZ, Wisconsin)

Music

While I understand that PR's politics generates passion there is a glaring omission in this article. The references to his singing career are only sketchy. This should have a discography. Many artists of much less importance have pages devoted to thier recordings.

Martin Rathfelder Manchester England

Alleged quote from Daily Worker

The article attributes the following quote to Robeson:

In a January 1935 interview for a publication called the “Daily Worker,” Robeson had these words for those who stood up the Kremlin: “Commenting on the recent execution after court-martial of a number of counter-revolutionary terrorists", Robeson declared roundly: "From what I have already seen of the workings of the Soviet Government, I can only say that anybody who lifts his hand against it ought to be shot! It is the government's duty to put down any opposition to this really free society with a firm hand," he continued, "and I hope they will always do it, for I already regard myself at home here. This is home to me. I feel more kinship to the Russian people under their new society than I ever felt anywhere else. It is obvious that there is no terror here, that all the masses of every race are contented and support their government."

I question its veracity. First, its language is completely unlike anything I've ever read or heard from Robeson. Second, Duberman's biography (550 pages + 200 pages of notes) fails to mention it, despite a 30-page chapter concerning the 1935 visit to Moscow during which the interview was said to have taken place. Finally, The Daily Worker, the alleged source of the interview, was a CPUSA megaphone, and Revolutionary Democracy, the site at which the quote was found, describes itself as a journal "on the problems facing the communist movement, particularly relating to Russia, China and India...."

Of the two (Duberman and the Daily Worker), which is a reliable source? Which is more "credible"? Which author is "generally regarded as trustworthy"? — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this too please for an additional source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the Daily Worker printed the article, but I question whether the words are Robeson's. According to Duberman, when Robeson left Moscow and arrived in London he told a reporter his interest in the Soviet Union "was, and is, completely non-political" — an exaggeration, maybe even a lie, but how could a person have made such bold political statements in the press and weeks later deny any interest in Soviet politics? Of the London remarks, Duberman says "perhaps deliberately exaggerating his lack of interest in public so that in private he might be better able to mull over his options ... delaying overt public commitment until his instincts and his understanding could become consonant." Undoubtedly Duberman was well-acquainted with Foner's anthology, but unfortunately he doesn't mention the Daily Worker article in the text or in the footnote. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh .. I see what you are getting at. I know Duberman uses material from the Daily Worker in the biography (not in this case, but in other references). Why did Robeson say one thing to the reporter in Britain and one to the Daily Worker (if he did), perhaps he felt more comfortable? I don’t know but I think the point is moot, as we should move all the quotes to Wikiquote and exclude them from the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there is any significant reason to doubt that the DW interview with Robeson, on the purges, misquoted him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Home Life

I think an important part of the Robeson story is his relationship with his wife, her more managerial role, rather than love interest. For me, that relationship was one of the most telling about the culture of African-Americans and the culture of the stage during this time period. On NPR 8/8/07, there was a segment about how to cover a story that you have a stake in (here) that discussed how a reporter at the time tended to overlook the negative aspects of MLK, Jr. because he was such a great leader. The downplaying of Robeson's "running around" seems to be similar. Utopienne 18:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What to do with these?

• Paul Robeson Performing Arts Company
• Paul Robeson Wales Trust
• Paul Robeson Community Elementary School
• Paul Robeson Elementary School
• Paul Robeson Gallery

These are all redlinks relating to Robeson. --evrik ^(talk) 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop messing Up This article...EVERYONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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