Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 5

Che Guevara
It's rated as a good article. It should be instructive because he was viewed by some as a radical. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Better explanation of why he became so outspoken is required
I understand that is the most difficult part of the article, based on my limited experience, to showcase what was the pivotal moment in his subjects life and made him who he was:
 * 1) "'I learned my militancy and my politics, from your Labor Movement here in Britain'"
 * 2) "Robeson's experiences during the 1930s caused him to alter how he felt about the relationship between art and activism."
 * 3) "By the end of the 1930s, Robeson had become an outspoken artist-activist"

There's an absolute critical moment in his life somewhere in there. It's lost because there are four different sections. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk)
 * I was trying to restructure in that section, and I agree that it is not evident. Some more detail is needed. It doesn't emerge clearly, either, how his international career took off. Chronological organisation 'really'' helps, you are spot on there. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my main criticism of the article. But, I do not underestimate the difficulty you will have in trying to improve that area. That is a very difficult task. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Harriet Tubman featured article

 * 1) following explicitly the editors of Harriet Tubman without prejudice 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Note: "without prejudice" means, I don't even given it a second thought. If a featured article does it, then I do it. Although I have been known to get in disputes with editors of featured articles when I feel I am knowledgeable. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) tying to wikipedia commons alleviates the authors of day to day check. You become uncoupled with that aspect of Wikipedia. This is wise. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and Paul Robeson Centennial Committee
Reinforce any citation that utilizes this organization. There is a plethora of available sources you have at your disposal. By their very nature they the Paul Robeson Centennial Committee should be suspected to be not neutral, although they may be entirely so. It does not hurt to have a published author backing up what they say. If it was the Paul Robeson Historical Society, then it would be different. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC) I view their website as the Official Paul Robesite Website and it's just not best practice to pull citations from such an official website. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting a major change in Legacy and Posthumous honors
I am requesting a flip flop on legacy and honors. Generally speaking honors come first and then legacy afterwards. Posthumous honors as a major section title does not appear to be valid.
 * 1) Death and funeral service should not be a major section.
 * 2) Subsection title: Death;
 * 3) Major section title: Legacy
 * 4) hidden (except for editors) section title here on specific awards(makes it easier to edit and can be done chronologically) and here list specific honors, building name changes, and other things of that nature
 * 5) hidden (except for editors) section title here on abstract reflections of his life - world renown people speaking about his life and his impact on society, no need for chronological order, finish the article w the big guns

The concrete honors are really inconsequential. It's the abstract ones that really, really matter. The article can not finish with the last sentence being an elementary school in such and such a place was named after him. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"The first memorial following Robeson's 1976 funeral was a tribute held in US House of Representatives January 28, 1976." This is 5 days after he passed away and 10 paragraphs after its mentioned he died. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with your line of approach on this. However, the SOAS hall of residence is important to keep, even if it is concrete. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. Let me rephrase because I misspoke. The abstract ones are most important. The concrete ones are, generally, less important. If you look, I just took great pains to delete that a high school in Chicago at 2635 something Blvd. was named after him. There is probably 100 high schools across the country that are named for him. Receiving a physical medal, such as the Congressional Medal of honor, is not really a concrete item. Generally speaking, If i delete something, just put it back in, I could care less. I am wrong alot, a real lot. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need to apologise. What you are doing is very useful. What seems best at the moment is for you to go ahead and edit as far as you can. Be bold. After that, I and others will probably quibble on a few points. But the general direction towards improvement is clear. Many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I might be mixing up SOAS's if there are more than one. Someone needs to check that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Rutgers University
I suggest the section be written chronologically. I know its difficult because he is involved in so much; it's mindblowing. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Levy writes in his book, Tackling Jim Crow, perhaps with tongue in cheek, that a Southern college was considered any college south of Bangor, Maine.66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) freshman year:
 * 2) sophmore year:
 * 3) junior year:
 * 4) senior year:

I do not see me mentioning this on this page. But, I've seen articles go in for review and they get criticized for not placing things chronologically. Rutgers University section is the first place to try it. In his early career, the article jumps out to his brothers and sisters get doctorates, and stuff like that, 2 or 3 sentences after Paul is born. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Lou Little and Harris are moved to legacy. Little's statement should be deleted. Camp contemporaneous comment is enough for Rutgers. Harris is historian reflecting on Robeson's collegiate legacy; it belongs in legacy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Paris Peace Congress

 * 1) move to relative excerpt: www.zikir.com looks to be mirroring wikipedia. The contemporary link http://www.zikkir.com/index/188568 is a dead link. Removing from article and putting here for safekeeping: "What's fascinating about that dispatch is that it turns out from my research that the AP had put the dispatch on the wires as dad was stepping up on the rostrum. So, it appeared in American evening papers before he had any idea that he had been quoted like that and it was made up out of whole cloth, not quite out of whole cloth, they used bits and pieces of speeches he'd made elsewhere on this tour, stitched them together in a way that sounded like his style of speaking, added this phrase, Negroes will not fight for the United States in a war against the Soviet Union and put it on the wires. And immediately the State Department and the machinery of government here spread this Robeson has said thus and so, he's a traitor to the country and pressured black leaders to denounce him and pledge loyalty to the United States. Many did, some didn't, but it became issue number one. Paul Robeson, Communist traitor to the US." I added a different source to substantiate the statement. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) superfluous, redundant and too detailed and too many quotes: "with radio commentator Walter Winchell approved by J Edgar Hoover. Jersey Home newspaper called for Robeson to be "executed in the electric chair" and Boston Sunday called him "an undesirable citizen", regretting that he had been "US born." The previous use of "nearly universal condemnation" is sufficient.......I would supplant it with something like "nearly universal, and sometimes vitriolic, condemnation"66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Stalin Peace Prize

 * 1) bulwark: This is redundant (put here for safekeeping):"Robeson is on record many times as stating that he felt the "existence of a major socialist power like the USSR was a bulwark against Western European capitalist domination of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean."66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comeback (1958–1961)

 * 1) stereo: I removed the stuff about the cds of 1958 being his only stereo recordings. Suggest put it in discography list with a little note. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) hardhat signing: removing "Many of the workers had him autograph their hard hats following the performance."; it's too detailed 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting a major change in Comeback (1958-1961)
I am requesting to delete section titles and titles only
 * 1) Tours of Britain and the USSR
 * 2) Wales and final performance of Othello
 * 3) Tour of Australia and New Zealand 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many quotes
There's way too many quotes in this article. Quotes are good if a point is murky or disputable. We have it down that he is in wikiquotes. Suggest moving some of his quotes from here to wikiquotes if they do not already exist there. It's just not fun to read an article with this many quotes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There's no reason for this big quote as it can be summarized, in two words, as a "malicious misrepresentation" of his speech:

"We in America do not forget that it was the backs of white workers from Europe and on the backs of millions of Blacks that the wealth of America was built. And we are resolved to share it equally. We reject any hysterical raving that urges us to make war on anyone. Our will to fight for peace is strong. We shall not make war upon the Soviet Union. We oppose those who wish to support imperialism Germany and to establish fascism in Greece. We wish peace with Franco's Spain despite her fascism. We shall support peace and friendship among all nations, with Soviet Russia and the People's Republics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Featured article Barack Obama has under 10 quotations. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This article has about 130 quotations (excluding 10 or so about books or names of songs. 66.234.33.8 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC).
 * 3) I think 25 quotes is a target number of quotes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have thought about this alot today. The first quote where the contemporary wikiquote template was place by me has to stay. The maliciously represented quote has to stay. His true quote has to go. I think what Catherine was trying to show was that he was a truly outspoken individual. This rings true. However, there are so many quotes that the article becomes dizzying to read and is like maneuvering through a miefield without a map as an editor. I'll go 30 quotes. No more than 2 quotes in one section except in really, really extreme cases. And there are too many sections. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism
I put quotation marks around plagiaristic entries. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The problem with too many quotes is, an an editor, you can not go near them. They are beyond reproach, and beyond copy editing. In an article without many quotes, there is always a superior editor out there that can say something better, and more succinctly, that will result in an article being improved. But quotes are a dead end and you have to use them wisely. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Health breakdown (1961–1965)

 * 1) conspiracy theory on health breakdown: Its' not chronologically valid. It was developed after he died. If there was a conspiracy, then he had no knowledge of it.  I have moved it to Legacy to deal with it later.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) outpatient treatment: too detailed, delete 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Later years (1966–1976)

 * 1) too detailed producer: delete who was the producer of the show 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
Thanks for all the recent work. I think the tag noting that the article has multiple issues is a bit strong. I don't think the casual reader would be wrong footed by any excessively long quotes. You have noted your concerns on the talk page and are working on them. I think that suffices. I also think the level of detail about Othello is fine as it's one of the things he is primarily known for for those who don't know much else about him. Best wishes Span (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I will leave you to deal with my criticism of Othello being too overly detailed at a later date then. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Analagously, I am leaving all baby sections alone. It's blatantly obvious there's some really intelligent people working on this article, but anyone could be overwhelmed trying to edit this article because he was involved so much. So, the baby sections can help compartmentalize the info. The bigger sections that are clearly sloppy, I'm folding up sections and put in hidden comment denoting section change. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you need a summarization of Robinson's remark wherein he called Robeson foolish in Congressional statement by Jackie Robinson.

Naming convention for Paul Jr.
Dealing with this is difficult. It was more difficult in Vince Lombardi because his son is not a junior. I got hosed up because the primary biographer, David Maraniss, does not call him Vince Jr but every other author does. I have not read the texts, but my gut feeling is he should not be referred to in this article as Paul Robeson Jr. but as Paul Jr. Whatever the dominant way the authors refer to him as should be utilized. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fall from grace
I would suggest 3 sections being folded into a section along that line. If you have a section named Comeback, you need a section Fallout or something like that. Changing section names is considered impolite so i aint gonna do it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

 * 1) resonates: delete "This close association endures to present day." No, he's dead. "His principles resonate even today" is what they are implying. That would go in Legacy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) confusing: I can not figure out this section either because I am tired or it needs to construct a discernible timeline. I can not figure out when he went to Spain or if he went to Spain more than one time. So, I can not touch it.20:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk)

Move to Britain and political involvement (1928–1939)

 * 1) move to intro: now someone needs to back fill the hidden comment with a citation. I am trying to stay away from intro work but that baby was ideal for inserting intro the introduction. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) travelguide: modify - s/at Gresford Colliery, near Wrexham/at Gresford Colliery 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) redundant: Nevertheless, in an interview with W. R. Titterton in 1930, Robeson believed he should be apolitical and stated the artist must be "ultimately accountable only to himself and his art; the prophet and the warrior are by definition at odds with the artist.

I would write it as: Nevertheless, Robeson professed his desire to remain apolitical.
 * 1) Someone has 2 citations, there so someone things its important.
 * 2) his actual quote is jumbled into the sentence and makes no grammatical sense, if you really like the quote then the sentence should read: the artist must be only focused on "himself and his art; the prophet and the warrior are ..blah blah" 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) W. R. Titterton: whoopdeedoo, he has a page on Wikipedia. So he's mentioned in this article? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction noted: Is this a dispute between authors, a contradiction, or what? If its a disupte, then rearrange it. One side of the argument is lacking a citation. If the side lacking the citation is utterly refuted, then delete.66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have found a solution by rewording more simply, with a reference. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Bert de Benneville Bell

 * 1) between 10 and 15 authors could not figure out the correct spelling of his name, his date of birth, his date of death and the age he was when he died. I spent at least 15 hours figuring those facts out. For Bell, (off the record) it all stems from the Who's Who of 1950. Putting a citation for Robeson's full name in the intro is personally painful. You have one person, not 5-7 professional contemporary writers - which I had to deal with, not 5-7 modern day professional football historians which I had to deal with, but a disgruntled wife. George Preston Marshall, Corrine (I think her name is, she was not a professional writer) put out a book in 1939 (or thereabouts); I read it - it was a joke. Did you read his divorced wife's book? Please see citation 1 in Bert Bell and look how it exists. At one time there was 5 citations for his date of birth and 5 citations for his name. I am not finished dealing with it, yet. But I am no longer infuriated by the authors' incompetency. Putting a citation in the lead is just painful to see and the way you are handling Eslanda's book, well, I think my way, by eventually becoming able to overcome the authors' negligence, is much, much better. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Look at all the citation on Bell's names and date of birth in the section Early life:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) That being said, I am open to advice on how to improve it :). But the way this article does it is 5 months of 4 hours a day of editing behind where Bell is. Of course, I am a little slow :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Law School

 * 1) I do not care who was members of Alpha Phi Alpha:which members did he know personally? Were he friends with them. Did he establish lifelong friendships with them. If not, then I would suggest it's off topic and name dropping. I can not delete Dubois et. al. because the statements are unclear. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) name dropping, off topic: delete without prejudice: William O. Douglas — later a United States Supreme Court Justice  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) "He graduated from Columbia in 1923. Robeson's academic record was not as stellar as it had been at Rutgers, and he had a mostly C average." Levy offers an explanation. Where is this articles explanation. Why was his record not as stellar as it had been at Rutgers. I am not telling you Levy's explanation. Levy is not a biographer in this respect. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) name dropping again, off topic - delete: of which Noble Sissle and W.E.B Du Bois were also members. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Allison Danzig
Is a sportswriter that was 40 years ahead of his time (you have to read some of the football books in the 50s through the 80s). He published a couple of books on college football circa 1950. I will look at what he has to say. I am very interested in corroborating some of the info in this article about Robeson's college football records being wiped out. Also, the different volumes of Who's Who are available for corroboration, although as I have noted, they, like everyone make mistakes. Also, the pulitzer prize winning biography (published probably 20 years ago) of Hoover needs to be looked at. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Danzig, Allison (1956). The History of American Football: Its Great Teams, Players, and Coaches. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

This book is massive. He has one other book that I think I do not have access to. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

William F. Buckley to maintain NPOV
This is a talk page so I can get away with saying that Buckley was the father of contemporary American conservatism. His rise to fame lagged Robeson's by about 15 years. This lag would have enabled Buckley to develop some opinion of Robeson as Buckley matured. Introducing Buckley, and not some off the beaten path editorialists, would offset Robeson winning award after award after award. George Will and Christopher Hitchens are great offsets too. But Buckley was very close to being Robeson's contemporary; Walter Winchell is not in the same league with with Robeson; Buckley is. I suggest this article needs to find what Buckley said, or what one of Robeson's biographer's wrote that Buckley said, about Robeson. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The King and Queen of England
The king and queen don't "go down and catch a play" on Thursday nights. Needs a lil fixin'. This article: He played for the King and Queen of England, although Robeson thought that that night he sang off pitch, a fact he felt distraught about. I modified in a first draft to: The acclaim the musical received brought a royal audience, principally King George and Queen Mary, albeit on a night Robeson thought, remorsefully, he was off pitch. Second draft??: The acclaim the musical received caught the attention of Buckingham Palace??? Look at the Wikipedia articles on marriages of the kings and queens of England in modern times. Look at the detail wikipedians place on the describing the queen's dress. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to Britain
I was trying to look up some more detail about his busy life in 1928. How did they move to London? Did they come over for Show Boat and then just stayed on? Or did they decide that London would be their new home? At what point did Robeson meet the unemployed miners?

Now I find dates quite difficult to reconcile. The references I can find for a Welsh miners' hunger march point to a march organised by Arthur Horner (politician) and Wal Hannington, arriving in London November 1927. (e.g. Worley, Class against class p. 175). We currently have that Robeson "gave them their first meal in days", yet the march would have been well enough organised for the marchers to have meals en route. If this is the relevant march, it would mean that Robeson was in London in November 1927. Yet Paul junior was born in New York City 2nd November 1927. Perhaps it was one of the later hunger marches, 1929 on, but since this seems to be his entry into political awareness, it is essential to be sure.

I may need to try and follow this back into the original sources, but this is still what we call "source research" in WP. I'm by no means proposing we write this up from primary sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * cool, you're on top of it then 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sometime during this timeframe,..." ..good article rating does not require awesomely precise...examine it and then move on 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * editing this article really helps me reflect on Bell...hmmm 66.234.33.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC).
 * So, after digging around, I've reconciled things. The "meeting the Welsh miners" story originates with Robeson Jr.'s The undiscovered Paul Robeson: an artist's journey. On p.156, he says that his father was, in the winter of 1929, "on a way to a gala affair" when he happened to meet the Welsh miners "singing for money to sustain themselves". He sang to them on the steps of a building. He later gave money for their journey home and a load of food and clothing for Rhondda families. Later the same year he donated proceeds of a concert to them and made his first visit to the Welsh valleys. That's all Robeson Jr. says about it. Well, there was an unemployed march to London in 1929. There is material about it in the UK government archives, and a pamphlet by Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First visit to the Soviet Union

 * 1) too detailed:delete: say what it did, don't say what it said: "Equality of rights of citizens of the USSR, irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law."66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) redundant, transparency of race: delete: He told the press: "Here, I am not a Negro but a human being for the first time in my life ... I walk in full human dignity." He said the same thing 2 sentences previously. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) He and Eslanda were nearly attacked <-- no such thing as nearly attacked, it's either were subject to a failed attack, or felt threatened 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Which is it? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Death

 * 1) inserted into: The white press [overwhelmingly]
 * 2) redundant: delete: Paul Robeson, the singer, actor and black activist, died yesterday at the age of 77 in Philadelphia.
 * 3) sloppy, failure to use inline citations: Condolences came from around the world, including Coretta Scott King, who deplored "America's inexcusable treatment" who had "the courage to point out her injustices." which of the 2 citations following this support which quote...I suspect the NYT citati...I think I'll fix this. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC) fixed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Howard Cosell on Monday Night Football
"Paul Leroy 'Robey' Robeson died..." I get being respectful. But this is Wikipedia. Robeson died suffices and is not dispectful. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"White Press"
I notice there are few references to the "white press", "white critics" etc (eg in the Death section). Robeson was an great international figure, with widespread press coverage and support globally. He was greatly celebrated in the UK (and still is). I'm not sure if the "white press" means "the majority of the US white press" or if this is editorialising by the biographies cited. I don't think it serves the article to use generic white/black terms, or to forget that Robeson and Wikipedia are global phenomena. Cheers. Span (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * points well stated. need a global perspective. I am not editing any content except about football. Someone else can do that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * unless I find something Buckley wrote that was critical of Robeson, then I'll put that in the legacy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed what I could in death. I know nothing of the worldwide reaction to his death in the press. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I went with white American press, instead of American white press, I forget why...I looked around a bit and I could not find which way it is supposed to be. Interestingly, I looked at the African American portal and there was no article remotely titled black press. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Content questions, feel free to ignore
There is no need to respond to this:
 * 1) Why was he elected class valedictorian?66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) What's this mean:Editor-in-chief Charles Ascher in later years said that the "Southerners on the board would have put up a fight..."?66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Why was his grades at Law school not as good as at college? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I answered that 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Why did Bell enlist for World War I and Robeson did not, nor was Robeson drafted? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Why did he not play football is first year at law school? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

St. Christopher Club traveling basketball team during their 1918–19
I think a vandal snuck this one in you guys:He also played for the St. Christopher Club traveling basketball team during their 1918–19 season.
 * 1) he was traveling during his senior year when he had stellar grades
 * 2) he was on the college basketball team and a traveling basketball team at the same time
 * 3) picturs of St. Christopher 1919 team (not a real source I know) http://photos.blackfives.com/Vintage-Basketball/Teams/Mens/14968921_5AhRk/2/1118000481_huDRD#1118000481_huDRD 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My bad, there's a picture of him on the team in Duberman's book 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Apex of Popularity and Post Spanish Civil War are bogus section titles
I just put them in temporarily; they need to be deleted when possible. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To the editors of this article I say
You have a strong part in directing this article. It's respectful to insert quotes from world class biographers and writers like Duberman and Robeson. But be bold, and have fun. This is not your article, but put your fingerprint on it. I am going back to Bell. Thanks for letting me have fun and edit :) I've learned a lot. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will, hopefully, sneak in and put some football stuff on you because this article's facts are all wrong in that respect :). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

1920 Akron Pros, use latest edition, dispute inline benched, envisioned him, rutgers university, 1950 volume

 * 1) 1920 Akron Pros: Bob Carroll (author) wrote that article that refutes Levy, Duberman, et. al. that Robeson played for the 1920 Akron Pros. Imho, Carroll is one of, if not, the greatest professional football historian that ever lived. "Levy writes Robeson played for the Akron Pros in 1920 but that is disputed by Akron Pros 1920 by Bob Carrol." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) use latest edition: This article seems to be using the earliest edition of Duberman's book. It has to use the latest edition.
 * 3) dispute inline benched: Oriard, in King Football, refutes he was benched. Oriard is pretty deadly here and it might be a reading comprehension mistake or a older version of Duberman that is being utilized. Don't get hung up on the dispute tag; it just means I am actively researching. I still have the world class football historian MacCambridge, Michael (2009). ESPN College Football Encyclopedia: The Complete History of the Game. New York: ESPN Books, Inc. ISBN 1-4013-3703-1 to look at.
 * 4) envisioned him: His fellow classmates envisioned him, C'mon guys, there they were college kids. That's not a a good one. The sports illustrated dug up poem is more fitting.66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) rutgers university: looks to have mistakes in it; requires further research; that's why it's always wise to read multiple source and check points of origination on the information (Specifically, Levy is refuting he made the glee club, at the very least, in his freshman year. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) 1950 volume: The 1950 volume, College Football Hall of Fame, labeled "the most complete record on college football", omits Robeson, identifying only a ten-man team....umm, that could because football research then was pathetic; i'll look into it. I read a Ph. D. thesis on the effects that television broadcasting would have on college football attendance which was commissioned by the NCAA circa 1950. It seems to be written by an 8th grader. There's lots of other examples of him becoming a non-person, choose one of them. The 1950 author is being accused of mailicious intent, maybe its true, maybe its not. What's undeniable is football historians, up until recently, make mistake after mistake, after mistake, after mistake. The fact that rutgers removed his college record on football as this article says is totally relevant and completely deadly. (Note: if you want to use that snippet, I am not going to lift a finger, I just suggest the article can do better than include that) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In conclusion, I am primarily focusing on football and football was a big part of his college, and law school life. Editing this article has given me a total different perspective in dealing w Bell and has helped me immensely.66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a new one on me. It seems like the college football historian gurus on wikipedia are using this ensuing template. Although, the website is new and does not cover players yet. But...this is an extremely difficult article, so the website might cover Robeson by the time you guys are done with this article, as an example:
 * Elmer Layden at the College Football Data Warehouse. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Robeson v Bell v Priestley v Robinson
I just looked at the number of sections in the TOC of each....Some of the sections were introduced by me because Robeson was such a complicated individual. All I know is that after over 1300 edits in Bell because of editing in this article, I finally have a good first draft intro in his article. (It's not entirely factual, but that's ok.) It's 23 sections for bell and robinson, 40 for robeson (some are fake) and 29 for Priestley. I know I have spun off a ton of stuff of for Bell; there's a ton of stuff spun off from Priestley and Robeson, a couple of stuff spun off from Robinson including a ton of see alsos). I'm pretty happy 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You edits are fantastic and you added a great deal of nice changes. Great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.209.0 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. I do my best. I am open to suggestions for improvement. I tend to make lots of mistakes and my grammar is not too good and my reading comprehension is not very good either.66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Duberman was criticized and is also praised
Guys, Duberman was criticized by another author for not forming an opinion on Robeson's life and was accused of writing a book that was encylopediac in nature. I don't know much about Wikipedia but I thought that including opinions of events or people's lives was important when writing articles on Wikipedia. If that is true, then this article will need sources (if it does not already have them) that both criticize and praise Robeson in order to maintain NPOV. I am big advocate of criticizing subjects because articles always contain a list of 50-100 things being named after the subject and medals being award to the subject, etc. I hope you guys are on top of this :)

Oh, OTOH, Oriard has nothing but the highest praise for Duberman. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson Archives
There's nothing like the Paul Robeson Archives section in this article on Wikipedia that I am intimately aware of, although I am not very knowledgeable about Wikipedia thingies. I hope you guys leave that section last in this article. Umm...sources are all over the Archive at Howard University as being completely unique. I humbly suggest it should be the last thing in this article because it is, in and of itself, a powerhouse. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Times of London Archive (1785-1985)
If you go to your local library or university and hopefully you can have access to the The Times[Times of London Archive (1785-1985)] for free. I took a peek at the talk pages for the times, and one person said it's a center right newspaper, which really means next to nothing.

The site will let you download everything for free if you get access to it. I downloaded like 43 meg of stuff for basically just 12 years. I would think it would be wise to download everything you can.

But in the lengthy tribute they paid to him on January 24, 1976 (which they mentioned he died on page 1, btw), they offered some high praise and then said this, (I'll just give the whole sentence) "Then for some years he was to be found visiting Moscow, Bucharest and East Berlin, often in poor health and repeating at press conferences naive left-wing catchwords and cliches and with an uncritical simplicity, which many who did not doubt either his sincerity or his warmth of heart found melancholy." 2 of the last 4 sentences in the tribute read: "He was posssessed of exceptional talent, a tremendous physique and a vital personality. Nature had created him on heroic lines and there was an heroic quality about much that he achieved both as an entertainer and as a spolesman for his race."

Good luck w dealing w that. Me personally, If I was offering high praise at the time of his funeral from a couple sources that you already have included, I would offer part 1 from the times and part 2 from the times for now and see how it looks. You are still missing commentary from the German newspapers, kind of important because this article says there's a street named after him in Germany. I'd be going after Der Spiegel66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys have a dang tough job how to deal with how papers around the world spoke of him after his passing. I would just make a new section than jam like a bunch of different ones from the right and the left and the center and from different parts of the world. Find the 2 or 3 ones I liked and keep them, delete the rest, then delete section. That's gonna be a darn tough job. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, just reflecting on it. That is going to be the hardest part of the article because you will be space limited. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, go new section, when a new editor comes along, just say, "Sounds great, put that in the 'World-wide perspective of his life' section" and just let the section grow and don't get involved. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

World wide perspective of his death
I put the section in. Cause his death is purely factual and editors might want to chime in on what they think should be included about notable sources saying about his passing. It's not just a left or right thing, it could be a country by country edit war that could occur. And both sides in the edit war could/will probably have great arguments :)

Eventually, I would hope the section would be removed and a general consensus of authors could narrow it down to 4 sentences...I would avoid blockquotes; they take up a ton of space :) Good luck 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Find a Grave
Guys, someone removed my link to find a grave. That's in every article I see. I have it in Bert Bell. Either please tell me it's link spam, and I will remove it from Bell, or put it back in please. I care not one way or the other. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think editors' opinions are mixed concerning Find-a-Grave. Many articles have the link, but it's considered by some to be spammy. Many entries at Find-a-Grave have copyright-violating photos that we shouldn't be linking to (see WP:ELNEVER).
 * Robeson's entry has no obvious copyright violations, so it's really a matter of personal preference. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool. yeah, people like to put their favorite sites in external links. See National Football League Draft. The ones that do not say NFL at the start are spam. I purposely changed the names that editors had put in for them, you know every one is trying to make a buck and you know they are all big fans and its a start class article so, I just let them be. For Bell, I deleted them all and that's the only one I got. You guys can figure out what you wanna do with this when the article gets higher rated. I like it because it has the words on his tombstone. But it's up to you guys. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rutgers university
it looks to have lots of mistakes in it and way, way too long
 * 1) Robin Davenport looks too detailed
 * 2) i have 2 sources, levy and leblanc disputing some of the glee club stuff
 * 3) the glee club, debate team and him winning prizes on or off campus is really confusing
 * 4) "At his valedictorian speech he exhorted his classmates to 'catch a new vision'"...very, very tough to delete a valedictorian speech concept (?) but thought should be give to do that.....
 * 5) His fellow classmates said they believed he would become a successful leader some day later in life ...that's redundant...they elected him valedictorian...needs to be deleted
 * 6) bring in MacCambridge for football stuff, he's made mistakes that I have documented but, I mean he wrote an 800 page book. I have trouble going 2 sentences w/out making a mistake. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Too detailed stuff here. What Levy brings out is Robeson had the ability to compartmentalize physical and verbal insults (Levy really never tackled his early college days) at a very young age and was able to perserve through it all without losing his cool. This has to be taken into account when dealing with things like he "thought his hand was broken" which I just put in and, paraphrasing, he lost a few fingernails as a result. Explicit details need to be minimalized. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Times review of Othello on May 19, 1930
"Mr Robeson plays in the grand style those scenes which yield their full effect to no other style."

That is directly opposite what is in this article.

Generally, however, the review was a mixed review. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Times citations I put in
I put in direct links to the pdf. Next to each direct link in hidden text is the preview page. If the preview pages are the ones that should be used, then please correct my edits and please then reply here so I know not to do it that way. Thanks 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Off topic, too detailed stuff
"He had long wanted to play the role, but the production closed after two weeks. (Adams went on to co-star in two of Robeson's films, Song of Freedom and King Solomon's Mines, and founded the Negro Repertory Arts Theater."

I suggest deleting that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Council of African Affairs
There's no news on it between 1937 and 1941. Since there's no news on it during that timeframe, I suggest tucking away it was formed in 1937. This then allows combining the silly section I put in called post spanish civil war....66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * iow, it's not notable that it formed in 1937, so leave that to the main article so we can write a better article for readers to read....66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

LaBlanc criticizes Duberman and this article
An essayist who wrote Robeson's biography criticized Duberman for writing an encyclopediac version of his life. This article is faithful to the genius Duberman. But when you include baby quotes its hard to discern what is being said. For example,

"At his valedictorian speech he exhorted his classmates to 'catch a new vision'"

The article has to a offer a full-reading (iow, by reading lots of different books and having a grasp of what the author means by the quote) explanation of what that means. For me, w poor reading comprehension, I have no clue what that 'catch a new vision' means.

We all know Duberman is a genius. But use your own words, if they are not better said, guess what, you can rewrite it over and over and over again, lol. Duberman is stuck in time 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

total rewrite of early life
I reformatted it to rearrange it chronologically. The 3rd paragraph is completely off topic and is a genalogy tree and really does not belong in the article and should be deleted. The important things you wanna consider is it the correct format; if not, then revert it. It has some problems I am sure even though it took me 3.5 hours to edit it:
 * 1) William Drew Robeson I is a specious term, it's very rare to see a I after a last name
 * 2) my grammar is always suspect
 * 3) "from the Robeson plantation" ...too detailed
 * 4) Lincoln University (Pennsylvania) should be Lincoln University, bytes dont matter; what matter is bytes the reader has to read through
 * 5) "Robeson refused to bow to pressure" needs rephrasing and summarizing
 * 6) 3rd paragraph needs to be deleted forthwith; the Bell article in contrast to this article does not include his brother enough because he was the NFL's chief lawyer and was a pennsylvanian supreme court justice. Robeson's brother, as ministor of a church in harlem, plays an extremely minor role in his life, in so far as I can see at this time
 * 7) kind of need more about his high school days...the tie in is not clean...he's 8 years old, then he wins a scholarship to rutgers....it's disjointed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

if you revert this article, then please explain why so i can learn 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Stamp redux
This article needs a picture of the stamp. It's critical. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed Eulogy
I put in a link for the Bishop's Eulogy. The eulogy may be abridge on that link. I have not seen the PBS American Masters show, so that could be the problem...then we just have to put (Abridged) in my cited link from the Paul Robeson foundation. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

National Archives picture not on wikipedia commons
http://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/ww2-pictures/images/african-americans-wwii-233.jpg 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC) http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/robeson/images/alston-drawing.jpg 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Online sources for featured article
Wikipedia newbie files say online sources are preferred. As an example, the Chicago Defender is online via a library login. They are the source for the Moscow trip info provided by Duberman. If I get it, and then put it in as a citation, in that citation I will put (see Duberman: 244) and then delete the Duberman citation. I've wiped out almost 100 excessive citations in Bell. Its just not fun to read an article that has 5 citations for someone eating a tuna fish sandwich for lunch.

Of course, some online sources are specious and sometimes great authors like Duberman are required to best decipher incidents. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Case in point, the good Bishop says Robeson lost every fingernail on one of his hands. That's kind of hard for me to believe. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I swapped out duberman for an online source, Proquest
 * 2) I am not sure how it works yet, but it can be accessed from around the world and at every major university in the U.S.
 * 3) I have to go back to my public library to get ask them how to get it off-campus
 * 4) specifically in this instance, you have Duberman giving his opinion of his death and then Duberman giving his opinion of the Amsterdam New's opinion, which is kind of yucky
 * 5) Duberman is a great author so he says its important. Providing an online link in this case will, I hope, allow the reader online access to the entire content of the article and form their own opinion
 * 6) this then follows the newbie guidelines of utilizing different sources and providing online links, in as much as i can
 * 7) i like it because i dont like duberman opinion followed by duberman's opinion
 * 8) i also like it because i bring a new professional writer out there
 * 9) i embedded Duberman in the Amsterdam source for safekeeping

One key thing is Robeson traveled all over the world. You have tons of critics in tons of different papers available that can offer their opinions on Robeson's views and theatrics. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Robeson has tons of specific honors
Guys, this guy looks to have well over a 100 Posthumous honors, and I am not talking including things like high schools named after him, or annual reflections that occur every year or during Black History Month. Someone who is a knowledgeable editor on Robeson, should promulgate a plan to deal with this. We are talking about grammy awards, lifetime achievement awards, this aint mickey mouse stuff. Someone needs to start wrestling with this. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have gone out on the limb. Every thing citation gets validated by a world-class author (this is a talk page so i can use peacock terms) and then ultimately should revert back to an online source, when possible and whilst safekeeping the w-c author's citation, for the benefit of the reader. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised if Robeson is posthumously honored with a Presidential Medal of Freedom. His outspoken nature w respect to free speech is chilling. So some of the honors in this article need to be deprecated and classified. This article should probably only list about 18-24 honors, and deprecate the rest. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I got into an argument over List of first overall National Football League draft picks which is a list of 75 picks or whatever and is a complete duplication of stuff out there on the internet. But, umm, Robeson I think will have more honors than exist in that article, and that article has no citations, and no context... 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ok, 12 honors thats it 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

another subject of an article on wikipedia that is considered notable: Abraham Lincoln
ok, 12 honors thats it, no more than that (you guys have at least 40) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) free speech united stated
 * 2) singing world wide
 * 3) acting world wide
 * 4) pan africanism
 * 5) civil rights
 * 6) i'll leave this one blank...6 awards, that's it

everything else is "numerous this and that" if you really thing think that a building at Rutgers has some world wide significance, than find fine, that's number 6; i think that really belongs in some kind of Rutgers University mea aculpa article 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

which is more important to robeson's legacy, getting this article to FA status or some street in, formerly Communist, East Germany is named after him or U of Penn has a cultural center named after him ???66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Duberman said this
You only get 1 shot to say duberman said this; that's it. Duberman said this is redundant when you are citing him from his book. Move to delete all occurrences of it except it one arbitrary spot. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

President Clinton's statement to westchester celebration
It actually insults Robeson and his supporters to say that Clinton sent a statement to the westchester folks. His home is in westchester, I guess clinton was too lazy to go the the celebration? If he had sent a statment to Wales or Australia, ok, maybe include where the celebration was. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson Archives
Originally started in East Berlin. I would guess they are mirrored by any serious university or library system in the world, not just Howard University. They are being digitized by the Paul Robeson Foundation-now that's important. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

NYT article on February 25, 1998
C'mon guys, this is way, way too long of a quote, everyone knows how to click on a link; let readers read it there, that's one of the points of Wikipedia is to get readers interested in the sources you use. So the ensuing comment was removed from the article:

"He was befriended by Jawaharlal Nehru, Noel Coward, Sergei Eisenstein, Jomo Kenyatta, Ernest Hemingway, James Joyce, Gertrude Stein and Emma Goldman. As a writer and performer, he was a pioneering human rights advocate, speaking out against segregation decades before the civil rights movement began and singing for American volunteers fighting in Spain against Franco and for struggling union members around the country. All this came at a time when discrimination against blacks was so entrenched, North and South, that Robeson was routinely forced to use freight elevators and denied entrance to hotels and restaurants."66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Renaissance Man
It's a cliche, but it's appropriate, find a source that will tie everything in nicely for ==Legacy== 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) scholar
 * 2) athlete
 * 3) singer
 * 4) actor
 * 5) activist
 * 6) speaker
 * 7) father and husband

Lou Little
Lou Little is not a go to guy on football skills. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First actor to be entertained at House of Commons?
This is in Marie Seton's piece in Freedomways, The Great Forerunner, but she says "probably" the first actor. 17 November 1928, invited for lunch at House of Commons by a group of Labour MPs, including Ramsay MacDonald. He met George Bernard Shaw in the afternoon and found out what "socialism" meant (according to Seton, anyway). We also learn that when they went to London in April 1928 they left their 5 month old son in the care of Eslanda's mother. Then in autumn/winter 1928/1929, when Show Boat ended, they decided to stay on in London. They rented a house in Hampstead, and Eslanda's mother and the baby joined them. The next spring they went on a tour of Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * His meeting with the House of Commons is covered contemporaneously by The Times of London in the digital archives. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed use of Duberman's 1988 book for an event occurring in 1995
A book published in 1988 can not be used as a source for an event occurring in 1995. I think I will revisit the sports illustrated article and use it as a source and then probably rephrase the statement, to say 1975 instead of 1995 for restoring of records, then delete the duberman citation. (I have the 1996 book in my possession, there is no p. xiii that I can find 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is referenced in Duberman as the NCFL being a holdout. L Brown mentions the eventual admission of PR in his post 1995 book. Just alter it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.168.122 (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can put it in the article too, cite it, and wipe out the dispute tag and we're good to go. I don't know what NCFL means. If I knew where it was, i'd put it in, cite it and wipe out dispute tag 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * or put it here, i'll put it in 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's worded wrong. I'll fix that. I have Brown's book in front of me. I see what you mean. That is a very, very, very interesting subject in sports history, see Lawrence Taylor and O. J. Simpson. I do not know the history of the college football hall of fame. We have to see who else they exclude, if anyone. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * or Mark McGwire, personally, I think its redundant to write he was in college hall of fame cause its in the infobox and we can't afford to waste the space. Much better to hit it with "He was a unique scholar-athlete"....fixed up better than exists now in Legacy. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed "Robeson's name was eventually restored to the Rutgers' sports records." The only thing I can see was that someone demanded that Rutgers remove him from the record books not that it was actually done. Generally speaking, this article has on more than one occassion used a source that said something to the effect "and the play opened on November 1, 1940" and cited by something "New Play to open November 1", New York Times, October 15,1940. I know common sense and all, but that's kind of sloppy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul's mom and date
Essentially all the stuff in this article was true. It lacked tie in with the right books. It lacked authors attacking each other and an analysis of it. I left out the Underground Railroad which looks to be dead on accurate and supported by 2 sources and no one is refuting it. The Underground Railroad looks to be off topic looks to be too detailed. The Union Army i left in, it could be off topic too detailed, but it's properly cited now. One citation I have moved way down to the bottom of the body of the article...it supports absolutely nothing and should be deleted. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction, the Igbo people as ancestors was cited with Robeson 2001. Robeson 2011 does not support that, in as much as I can see. Brown demolishes the idea that he was descendant from the Igbo people. 65.88.88.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Note the Robeson 2001 citation that was used in this article did not include a page number, so I had to bounce around and look for any hint of Igbo people in his book....there was none. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * possibly apocryphal tale ...Robeson Jr. has it as "According to family legend..." 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954) not wikified
Why does this article not have that wikified in this article? Is someone against it being wikified? Is someone claiming he was not part of that movement?

That article points here from its Section 2.166.234.33.8 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New York Times (and other) free online source prior to 01/01/24
Online sources will be swapped in for everything that can be swapped in prior to 01/01/25 because my limited understanding by Jan 1, 2012. They will all be available online. If there's another paper that someone can find, all the merrier because then we get different sources. The Chicago Defender was a big Robeson following guy to. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson Jr. and NBC in 1976
The fact NBC cancelled Robeson's appearance on Eleanor's program has already been covered. I think this the ensuing stuff I stipped from this article does not belong here, but belongs in Paul Jr.'s article:

In 1976 NBC approached Paul Jr. asking permission to create a documentary on his father. Robeson, Jr. turned down the request, regarding it as offensive given their past treatment of his father.

66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Susan Robeson
I think that one should be let to slide by in the legacy section. What Susan does is not strictly a Paul Robeson thingie, my gut feeling is to let that one slide by and bend the rules a bit. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Legacy good to go, all it needs is to be totally rewritten
Legacy looks to be 3 paragraphs. I think there's some really great ideas there.
 * 1) hero-icon
 * 2) singer-actor
 * 3) activist-radical-speaker-pariah
 * 4) intellectual-author
 * 5) father and husband

There's a lil clink. What is his legacy popularly perceived as, and does it match what his legacy should be. Did the US Goverment succeed in making him forever a nonperson? If not, what stopped that from occurring? If so, why could someone at the pinnacle of fame, be wiped out?66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Duberman and Truman
I looked at Duberman's book. Clearly Duberman and one of the essayists in Joseph Dorinson's edited book, Paul Robeson: Essays on His Life and Legacy, come down hard on Truman for dismissing Robeson after he threatened to take action over no anti-lynching legislation, but there's no Truman books in this article; there's no Truman books in Duberman's article;also the NY Times, circa 1900, btw, said the two greatest menaces in the United States were 1) lynching, and 2) college football (I'm reading John J. Miller's book, The Big Scrum now)...this article needs to look at Truman, Hoover, and Eisenhower books too 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Almost every primary source in this article has the two words Paul Robeson in it. I would probably vote against it being a featured article on that basis alone. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eslanda -> Essie
I have not seen Eslanda referred to as Eslanda, only as Essie....Next easy step is to swap all occurrences of Eslanda for Essie. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Support for usage of the term political radicalism and the introduction
I see nothing in the body of the article that would permit using the term political radicalism in the introduction.

The word radicalism is only used once in the article, and that's in the introduction - that's a no-no. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

1st sentence intro
It's normal for that to be rewritten and debated about. I think athlete maybe should not be included. I was gonna take it out, but then i stopped. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Name removed from history books?
So, the Who's Who book is claimed to have removed his name...I'll doublecheck that personally, ..it's one book, to say history books implies he was alive 200 years ago and hundreds of history books were rewritten to remove his name. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Step by step
Str1977, as you tagged the article, please explain your concerns starting with ONE section at a time (or LINE if needed.) And PLEASE stay within that one section while airing concerns and please keep it as brief as possible. Let's go through this line by line starting with the intro. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro neutrality
Str1977, please explain your concerns for the intro. Catherine Huebscher (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Using Russian encyclopedia as a source while Stalin could have been alive
I have high confidence what that source is used for is truthful, but using a Russian encyclopedia printed in 1953 while Stalin could have been alive, um, no way is that a good source. I'll find a better one. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * swapped out, practically, unverifiable Russian encyclopedia source for 2 online American Newspaper sources, one from Charleston, and one from Victoria Texas...the one that reports the news that he was scheduled to receive it is really nice because it tells you why he won it....very cool, I love it66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrappers around citations
Quite a few citations are being used for statements that they have nothing to do with. I might start throwing wrappers around citations once I have investigated them properly. My gut feeling is that with all the contraversy around this subject, stuff was moved around alot and citations because unattached. I would suspect I am partly to blame. ...But, at least there's no citations in the intro now. There is a citation for the pronunciation of Robeson, but that looks like editor's preference. I dont really like it, Spanish Civil War has one too but I think that one is required, and the one in this article, well if that's my biggest complaint then I can deal with it.

I would not mind wrapping up his college years this weekend with all citations properly checked. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa Society laureate
I've never seen this term. It looks bogus. Shouldn't it be member of the Phi Beta Kappa Society. I'm changing it. it's bogus 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * besides the can n skull bones thingie was a bigger award anyway....66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What's he known for and what he was
mainstream --> what he's know for --> Othello --> unapologetic supporter of the Soviet Union\communism (big debate here on unapologetic supporter of Stalin) what he was-->why is Othello such a big deal??? So he was the first black actor to play in an otherwise all white cast...someone had to be sooner or later-->Soviet Union/Communism/Stalinism is a vastly more complicated subject I think the othello stuff, is much ado about nuttin 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In the arts, James Earl Jones, Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte have cited his lead film roles as being the first to display dignity for black actors and pride in African heritage [and the fact that he demanded that his roles not portray stereotypical African Americans] .....NOW that's important....and it blows away his role in Othello .............Othello does not belong in the intro......Othello is NOT that important.....if ever there was a case for associating the term radicalism...this is it 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * don't get hung up on landmarks of first this and that...first this and that happens all the time....Robeson sought to change the foundation of the economic success the entertainment industry was built upon at the time 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted external links or citations that are dead links and not worth chasing down because they offer nothing extra
deleting 2 of 5 citations supporting buildings (so now we got 3 citations supporting 1 sentence- which is overkill as it is) named after Robeson on Rutgers campus, the other 3 are kind of crummy links, btw, and should be replaced with real links: 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul Robeson at the NJDH

Podcasts, tv shows and movies as sources
I suggest they should be used as a last resort. There's enough written about him to cite statements. It's really burdensome to have to listen to a 1/2 hour podcast (twice-while rewinding it over and over again) to check accuracy of statements. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Freedomways pages not correct
I have the quarterly issue in from of me. Note: the journal says "All issues of Freedomways are indexed in Index to Periodical Articles by and about Negroes published annually by G.. Hall & Co., Boston" so you should be able to verify everything. Also, the journal exists in microfilm also.

Robeson Jr.'s article is page 22-33 Robinson's article is pages 64-72

This article claims Robinson's is 178-188. The first quarter Journal ends at page 132. Robinson does not write anything in the second quarter Journal. Very strange 65.88.88.231 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

65.88.88.231 (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) "It is also a fact that the book College Football, published in 1950 by Murray and Co. ....10 man team for 1918 only .." p. 23
 * oh, college football hall of fame was at rutgers in 1971, good point on that on, p. 23

This article describes this as a reference: Robeson, Paul, Jr. (1971) "Paul Robeson: Black Warrior", in Freedomways The Great Fo1rerunner, pages 3–16

this could be a honest mistake of applying the 1985 book here to what the 1971 journal is here  65.88.88.231 (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

p. 22: not permitted into glee club because of obligatory social events that followed performances 65.88.88.231 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The journal Freedomways, had a "special issue" which someone could believe the subtitle of that issue was Paul Robeson:The Great Forerunner, however nothing in the book jacket says that...it's the same old freedomways.. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Quarterback and head coach Fritz Pollard is offtopic, move to 1920 Akron Pros season
Off topic, merged to 1920 Akron Pros season see Talk:1920 Akron Pros season 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

His family was dirt poor
Ain't that important?
 * Um, yes, it's very important. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

His father died during his junior year in college
Ain't that important?
 * Um, yes, it's absolutely critical. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Homeless
I read some of the arhive stuff...but the article should concentrate on the easy stuff on his life 1st; the fact that he lived like a dog and was homeless has to be dealt with first and gotten out of the way....there's plenty of time to deal w the Smith Act (i know nothing about that) and all that sophisticated stuff later...the article needs to lay a foundation 1st. I want the article to put in stuff that we can all agree upon 1st and let the intelligent people take over after that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * fixed homeless; it was accurate but not really precise 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Early life only 3 paragraphs
this article has only 3 paragraphs, Robinson has 5, so I'm kinda happy about that. this article has left out 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) westfield, nj (no big loss there)
 * 2) him working odd jobs to help support his way through high school (not a great loss)
 * 3) narranganset and pollard (um, interesting)
 * 4) his brother Reed (scratch)

Directed by, produced by, score written by, co-starring
You guys like that stuff?66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying we might add detail to the Filmography section? If so, then probably not, because all the detail should be in the daughter article. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro football career
This is mentioned in the lede, but I don't see it anywhere in the article, what years did he play, and for what teams. — GabeMc (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Gabe, The article is in the middle of a major rewrite, and somebody may have "lost" that information. There's a "pro football infobox" at the top of the article that summarizes Robeson's brief football career. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Under construction
Never seen that. This is cool. I can't wait to see what you do. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that Malik is giving you space to make your edits. By the way, we are all pleased with the way you are taking the article. I will try and comment on some of the many issues that you have brought to this talk page. If I disagree on something, I'm sure we can discuss and come to an agreement. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the only thing I am pretty dedicated to is he only played pro football for 2 years and that Marquis book is a kids book and should not be allowed...that's not me...that's what I've seen reviewers say. That being said, I do use the Marquis book in Bell, but that's for the year 1933. I am kind of very interested in finding out what year Marquis removed him from the encyclopedia. I think more online links are better than all authors especially when it points to a play because in that link you get all the actors, the director, a review of the play. And more online scholarly journals would be cool too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I switched over everything in Bell from e.g. to cf. So that is probably the most important thing I want to know about because I did it here.
 * Today, and today alone(!) I embedded (in other words deleted) close to 80 (!) duplicate citations for the most inconsequential facts (no one adds content to the article but me so they are not disupted) in the Bell article and today alone I wiped out almost 10,000 bytes and rewrote the entire legacy in Bell. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, I advocate running and gunning up to 1934, at the very least. All authors will be very close to this point and there should be no contraversy. The basic rule of Wikipedia is to add content and we can safely add content at that point without the slightest worry of someone reverting it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith is right; I put the template up to explain to readers that the article is undergoing a rewrite. I think you (I can't tell if it's one or two of you) have been doing a fine job. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On how long he played pro football, the rest of us totally defer to you. I understand virtually nothing about American football. On your second point, about the usability of Marquis Who's Who, you are probably right that it is a poor source and should be substituted wherever possible. On scholarly journals, please let us not prioritise online vs not online. Online sources are easier to verify but journals not online can also be really good sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You can click on my ip address that Wikipedia shows you and you should be able to track down the ip address as being owned by the New York Public Library system. And I am either at home, or at a one of the nyc public libraries, either Schomburg, the one for the performing arts , or Schwarzman 66.234.33.8 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So there's 2 contemporary reviews of Taboo. I tucked away Boyle and Bunie (that actually needs to be double checked to see if it supports the statement because I slid it over from a later sentence) into The Evening World citation. The 2nd review talks about where it was staged, might be overkill. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the Library of Congress so everyone should have access and its more fun than Duberman or Boyle and Bunie 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Marquis Who's Who
The freedomways is being used to substantiate Marquis Who's Who but it never mention the word Marquis. I think the editor must have made a mistake of combining a modern day who's who with an older one. This is one from 1950:
 * Rothe, Anna; with Prodrick, Elizabeth (1951). "Bert Bell" in Current Biography: Who's News and Why 1950. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company. p. 33–35.

and Robeson's name is listed in 1950. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: one time i misunderstood page numbers in digital books. I incorrectly listed 120 citation pages numbers, I had to spend 12 straight hours fixing them, what a total nightmare, probably all just little honest mistakes. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's explanatin of Marquis' Who's Who with this excerpt, "In the 1968-'69 edition of Who's Who, John Lennon is present but Mick Jagger is not, reflecting parental attitudes toward the Beatles and the Rolling Stones more than professional objectivity." from the New York Times here and that does not look like the Who's Who I am familiar with.

There's bigger fish to fry, right now, gotta get early life and rutgers closed out. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the NFL articles on wikipedia was going for review for featured article, one editor was reviewing it when another editor jumped in and said the article was using a young adult book as a source and said that fact, and that fact alone, warranted its dismissal. The first editor agreed. Marquis Who's Whos is essentially a children's book. It should not be mentioned in this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For reference, he was remove in 1960. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

1898-1934 pre-Stalin purges, and 1898-1946, and 1898-1949
This article should be able to swiftly move to the year 1934 at the very least. My memory is a little sloppy on the exact date the Stalin purges began. I also really don't see any big contraversy coming before the Iron Curtain was erected. Now, Truman, Hoover, and Robeson, that would be fun to look at. Definitely need a Truman and Hoover book in here and really, the FBI files on Robeson do not cut it. Need a professional author to offer an opinion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 things I think are absolutely fascinating. 1) the Harlem Renaissance. I am just bowled over by that period, how many people emerged, in how many fields of achievement. 2) how PR got into left-wing politics when he moved to England for Showboat. I don't buy into the whole "he walked out of the building and bumped straight into a group of unemployed miners singing their hearts out". That is typical myth-making. Apparently in the US he had already met Emma Goldman. In England he had been befriended by Labour Party bigwigs, although he then moved to the left of them. It seems that he was getting close to the Communist Party of Great Britain at a time when it was still in its class against class phase, before it started to prioritise winning over celebrity figures as fellow travellers. This could be important in the history of the CPGB and the international Communist movement. I don't suppose he ever met Ho Chi Minh in London, would be a weird coincidence. Anyway, yes, we are nearly there for everything up to 1934. Many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your idea of introducting a Harlem Ren section, from what I see, its applicable
 * Also, after looking over things for the last couple of days, I think I have access to over 4,000 scholarly journals. I am kind of what other people can get from their library. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and 2 books just on college football at rutgers, one in 1972 and the other just came out, very cool 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Harlem Renaissance]66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hammond Pros
To make a long story short, one of the history books on college football at Rutgers is reporting Robeson played for the Pros. I think it's absolutely false and I think it's understandable, based on a bunch of different side issues i.e. David Neft, John Carroll, Red Grange, Fritz Pollard, Bert Bell how someone could write that. But now that he wrote it, I have to look into it. The author did not include which year he supposedly played for the Pros so that really is kind of a pain 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mary E. Cygan in Paul Robeson: Essays on His Life and Legacy
By including the 2 New York newspaper articles of 1922 in this article, I call attention to what she wrote on p. 81 that reviews for his works did not come until 1924. She may mean the NYT, but really it's not a knock on her. That book is 12 years old. She had no chance to find that article. I found it in 2 minutes. And one of the comics is kinda funny too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Competent lawyer ...too detailed info...1st draft
I'm tired but some of this stuff is too detailed. I rewrote it and its only a 1st draft thingie:

Early career (1920–1928)
Robeson started working for the law firm of Stotesbury (a Rutgers alumnus) and Miner in New York City, assisting on a litigation trial over Jay Gould's estate. Though his brief was used in the Gould trial, Robeson, the only black person in the law firm, quit after a white secretary refused to take dictation from him, saying: "I never take dictation from a nigger."

Robeson started working for the law firm of Stotesbury (a Rutgers alumnus) and Miner in New York City. His work there established him as a competent lawyer among his colleagues, but when a white secretary refused to take dictation from him because he was a "nigger", he resigned.

Generally, if they used his brief, then they considered his work competent. That's common sense. Jay Gould is too detailed. If they did not use his brief, then a case can be made that he was incompetent. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel sorry for you guys cause I learned how to do that nowiki thing and i think its cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * oh the 2 words "in protest" is a first draft thingie...I'll just leave it at that. there's some complicated issues involved. and like i said its a 1st draft thingie 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Unnotable honors moved from body of article to here, pick what you want to save and put back in
The former "Stolpestrasse" in East-Berlin, Germany, was renamed Paul-Robeson-Strasse. In 1986, Pennsylvania State University dedicated the Paul Robeson Cultural Center.' A post of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade presented "Paul Robeson: The Artist Must Take Sides" in tribute. Robeson's image is included in a historical monument dedicated to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade which was unveiled on The Embarcadero, San Francisco in 2008. On September 26, 2009, Edgecombe Avenue and 160th Street in Washington Heights, Manhattan, were renamed as Paul Robeson Boulevard and Count Basie Place. In August 2011, Tayo Aluko's one-man play "Call Mr. Robeson" was shown at the New York International Fringe Festival. It is scheduled to be performed in Carnegie Hall on February 12, 2012. A number of Welsh artists have celebrated Robeson's life: the Manic Street Preachers' song "Let Robeson Sing" appears on the album Know Your Enemy. Martyn Joseph's song "Proud Valley Boy" on his 2005 album Deep Blue is also based on Robeson's Welsh connections.

65.88.88.216 (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * btw, if you want to save something, then please make sure it has a proper citation. The stuff is not going to be archived for two months. If you can't find a citation for it in two month, nuf said. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * reset the clock 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary materials and bibliography
I temporarily switched over to a different format on the bibliography section because I like to see authors names like the Joseph Priestly article does it. I am not married to it. It's just less confusing for me. Some, err, lots of those books will eventually be deprecated and deleted. I put a book or article in, look at it, then delete it. Umm, I love old school books because they offer a contemporary perspective, but....Some of the old school books tend to not really live up to scholarly standards nowadaws (especially football books). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover
I would suggest being careful w statements made about Hoover w respect to Robeson by authors. Hoover made his bones by going after Communists, thats how he got his job, if I remember correctly. I'd be leary of using the term "personal vendetta against Robeson" without consulting some Hoover books first. That being said, I really had no idea who Robeson was 3 months ago so maybe its in the books but I just skipped over it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations for a paragraph
I don't advocate multiple citations within a paragraph if they are only 4 or 5 pages apart. One citation is good enough; otherwise it's overkill. However, once a new paragraph begins, I put a citation in as soon as required even if its on the same page. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Susan Robeson's book
It's a great pictorial essay. But, 65.88.88.216 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) any content in it has to be removed from this article because it's a coffee table book
 * 2) don't feel bad, now I gotta go over to Bell and remove at least one book there, Riger's, and I have to probably remove more than 1

Master of arts and 12 letters at Rutgers
The university introduces him as someone who won 12 varsity letters in 1930? in a Chicicago Defender article when presenting him with an honorary master of arts at rutgers 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Section changes and CAA
Unless I am reading it wrong, the CAA does not amount to much and he did nothing with it between 1937 and 1941. Since he did nothing with it until 1941, its creation in 1937 can be ignored and its first mention can be made in 1941 and the 1937 start date can be hidden. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it may be quite important in the history of the Civil Rights movement. But I agree it doesn't need mentioning till 1941. Yergan and Robeson went separate ways in the Cold War, and that is worth covering. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted long quote which is overkill
This can be stated in a simple sentence, so delete:

Robeson rationalized his return to the US by stating:

{{blockquote|text=I've learned that my people are not the only ones oppressed. That it is the same for Jews or Chinese as for Negroes, and that such prejudice has no place in a democracy. I have sung my songs all over the world, and everywhere found that some common bond makes the people of all lands take to Negro songs, as to their own....{A]ll oppressed people cry out against their oppressors....[These experiences] have made me come home to sing my songs so that we will see that our democracy does not vanish. If I can contribute to this as an artist, I shall be happy.}} 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Law Review
deleted, he never applied to it. the fact that there were racists on the board is off-topic: His broken tenure at the school due to his work in theater made him ineligible for the Columbia Law Review. Editor-in-chief Charles Ascher in later years said that the "Southerners on the board would have put up a fight..." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Rutgers University section too long
need to chop that down by 4 sentences and I want that poem back in 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC) forget the poem, think needs Pollard in there because of John Carroll's book 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Essie
I delete this, its off topic: Essie wrote the first biography, Paul Robeson: Negro. Told in the third person, she wrote part fiction, part memoir about the problems in their marriage and his early life and career. It certainly would be alot easier to edit this article if Essie was not such a powerful figure. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I thought it might be worth mentioning, but needs rewording. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We got a major problem. This article needs to find a featured article wherein the wife is a powerful figure but her role is not a divergent one to her husbands. Clearly Essie deified and protected him but unlike Eleanor Roosevelt, her goals became one and the same with Paul's (my opinion at this time - which may not be accurate - was Paul became the leader in his political activism and she follwed and supported him). She was clearly an extremely intelligent person, which is a major problem. Marie Lombardi clearly deified Lombardi, as Essie did with Paul, but Marie was not an extremely powerful figure in his career (oh, but Marie was powerful). My original research, iow, my honest opinion, leads me to believe Frances Upton was the secret to Bell's success but ...I can't write anything about Frances unless an author says it is so. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary sources vs. modern sources
This is interesing. Contemporary sources under no circumstances can be ignored. But they can not be overused. I would not use anything printed by any author of a book printed before 1980, more than once for a citation, just as a general rule. I dunno, this dude was pretty complicated. Using Seton's 195x book for a citation looks to be a bad idea. I would move to delete from this article whatever is used from it. And, I have not even read her books, but I want it deleted. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the main point to consider is that Duberman's biography is the standard biography. We need to keep referring back to it. I don't have a copy at the moment, will probably buy it. Of course we use other sources as well. In certain areas like the football record, maybe we can do better than Duberman. Also Duberman is quite pro-Robeson, which doesn't invalidate his book as a source at all, but it does mean that we have to check for neutrality all the time. All earlier accounts than Duberman's are essentially superseded by Dubmerman's later, more thorough research. Does that make sense? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree...its the standard biography, iow a textbook, and we need to keep referring back to it. However, Duberman may not have devoted enough research into one specific area, which you are alluding to w respect to football, and it needs to be handled by specialists in a specific topic. I would think his son was more pro-Robeson than Duberman; but the thing is that if no author will go on record to attack Duberman or Robeson Jr., then it is what it is. I could care less about right or wrong, I just follow wikipedia rules. My primary concern is: did Robeson play for the 1920 Akron Pros, sorry, but that's the truth 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 99% of this article can be writtten by just answering who, what, where, when. I have skipped over why and how almost entirely. After all that is done, then if no one is still not contributing, I'll put in the why and the how and let you intelligent folks have all the fun. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Courtship
It's open to interpretation. Page #s are listed so someone can choose a version they think is more correct, if they so desire. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Section title required 1923 to 1939
choose a title 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC) oh, i just looked at Robeson's book, 1898 to 1939 ... I think this article follows more like wikipedia articles do it 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC) also see if you guys can come up with a section title name for 1940 until 1965 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The New Idealism
That's my interpreation of his speech based on what B&B and Duberman wrote. Choose your own interpration if you like, my reading comprehension is not that good. Page #s are listed and the speech exists as a published works. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1920 Akron pros season
I've been tracking down the roster using primary sources on Talk:1920 Akron Pros season. What's left out is there game in Chicago in the 2nd to last game of the season and if Robeson played in Chicago and the Chicago Defender and the Chicago Tribune are available as sources. Also looking at the Cleveland Plain Dealer. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Early years
Introduced a temporary section so I can do stuff in the sandbox. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Carin T. Ford
She writes childrens books, see. All of her citations are being removed and she's dropped down to tertiary sources. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Harlem renaissance
Why did Essie push Paul into the arts? I have not seen that answered yet. I am not going to touch it. But that will have to be answered I would think, especially since the arts were so new (speaking from someone who is totally ignorant of the arts, though) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish we could find a source that answers this, and also makes it clear when he got his first breaks and began to succeed. This is normally a major question addressed in biographies of recording artists. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * well, if you can not find a source, then you will have to build up a case for answering the question. I think the question is important to the story line. Most of Bell is dealing with the burgeoning television broadcasting industry, which I delve into very deeply, but this is radio and Broadway and the harlem renaissance; all of which I know nothing about. It's not going to be easy, and I am sure, you will make mikstakes, but it should be fun :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * well that didnt come out right, but original research is always a worry, it should be fun figuring it out and i will enjoy reading it, thats better 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed Henry Foner
I can not find any book written by Henry Foner written in 2001. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Dorinson's book:foreword, introduction, preface
Guys, lets not use those sections in the book. It's like: ...so I have 2 delete 2 more books in Bert Bell. I'm really sorry but it's easy to see your mistakes here and my mistakes there.
 * Daley, Arthur (1963). Pro Football's Hall of Fame. New York: Grosset and Dunlap pp. 183–194.
 * Sullivan, George (1968). Pro Football's All Time Greats. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. p. 23–28.

Also, I went to the live help desk about Dorinson and I go no answer how to format Dorinson's book, so I will just make up my own formatting and introduce into tertiary sources. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hoax
This is sloppy, I can not believe I can not find this Henry Foner book that was supposedly written in 2001. Those citations and that book will be erased when I wake up in the morning unless someone responds. There is no excuse for letting a hoax to perpetuate. I have Dorinson's book in front of me, Henry Foner writes the introduction which is pp. 1-3. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I slapped a hoax tag on it. So, some administratory will prolly check this out. Good, as far as I am concerned. I can't find the book and I do not think that book exists. Of course, I've been wrong before :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * per other editor i removed the tag and attributed the publishing to the paul robeson foundation. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

192x-1939 and 1940-
I think the article will be prettier if it has a section change after 1939. I am sorry, but his son's book looks to be the best way to do it with respect to stopping at 1939 for a number of reasons. After 1940, it kind of gets a bear for two reasons: 1) 1949, and 2) alot of the writers are really pushing his performance of Othello in the middle of a world war that claimed quite a lot of lives. So whatever other people want in this regard is fine with me. The pre 1939 stuff is kind of screwy because of the Harlem Renaissance of the 20s and there's nothing on how he fit into it. Section titles and section changes are always major debates, whatever everyone wants is fine with me, but if it was me, I would knock down wwii and apex of popularity at least one notch 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * so i am hoping someone will give a better section title than Move to Britain and political involvement (1923–1939) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and unlike his son, I would draw a line somewhere around 1959, and put in subsections, comeback, health break down, obscurity (or seclusion) seclusion withdrawl from public life and I am sorry but the last section i would use the sports illustrated article, and entitle it return of a fallen hero.  66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk)
 * I'll let you guys figure out if he's deserving of that type of section title...just becuase its a pro-robeson section title does not mean the contents have to be pro-robeson...66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * but yeah, i like that section title name-I'm going with it;my very limited understanding is sports illustrated was largely apolitical and middle of the road, although i am not the swiftest guy around, I like it and I think its an appropriate title for a subsection. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i just looked, sports illustrated beat the carnegie hall performance of 1973 by 1 year, case closed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Communistic movement in harlem during the 1920s
It's kind of best to avoid the article becoming parochial, but he lived in Harlem, and by all accounts there is nothing on the movement there in the 1920s. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, did someone say there would be? Did you want to know when PR was first exposed to left-wing politics? We have some evidence for Britain, with him having tea with Labour Party elected representatives in the House of Commons. Prior to that he met Emma Goldman, which might be worth following up.
 * I just posted on User:Malik Shabazz's talk page. He's off on a short wikibreak. It is worth holding fire a bit on anything cultural, social and political until he comes back. And then we can all work together to get the article to FA. Your work on anything sports related is very much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pollard, slumming, Essie

 * think* fritz pollard is an awesome dude. I have to come up with find an author to come up with an explanation why Robeson took 24 hour train rides to Milwaukee to play for the badgers. The stuff I wrote about Columbia Law School looks to be wrong- nothing surprising about that. Essie was, at the time, in the hospital recovering from some illness and he left her bedside, yet, he crossed the entire Atlantic Ocean to be near her. One baby step at a time. Why did Robeson go back to football? I don't believe the stuff in this article about open marriage. It makes no sense. They lived together for twenty years in almost solitude. One step at a time.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Robeson liked to pop up at parties and suddenly just start to sing. That is totally mindblowing to me. Maybe for you artistic types it's nomral, but no, it's totally mindblowing. I'm sorry. That's got to come into the article. Then again this article to be a featured article has to be written on a professional (which I am nowhere near) level. I'll just do the basics and let you guys figure out the rest.66.234.33.8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

New Theatre Quarterly 2010 on 1930 Othello
I'm fighting to read it for free. I hope you folks have read it, I will read it soon although I don't wanna pay the 6$. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it, I got a pass to enter the library. Morrison is writing a book on it. In the article, in NTQ, Morrison claims it was the best production of Shakespeare in England in the 20th Century-everyone and his grandma knew that was coming. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Borderline
I'll remove the citation needed and put in a further reading on an article explaining it. It differs, I would say massively, from Nollen's version. The only problem with the journal article I am referring to is that it uses words I've never seen before and the sentence structure is screwy; so, I found it extremely difficult to comprehend. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Brooks Atkinson
I got the book and page number and such. It's a bad idea to keep that statement in. It's generally superfluous to put in exhibit A and exhibit B that this and that occurred - that's lawyer stuff. Everyone agrees the U.S. government sought to minimize his freedom of speech and everyone agrees he was blacklisted. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Candidate Wallace
This article writes: "overflow audiences... in Negro churches in Atlanta and Macon", what the previous editor neglect to include was: "The overflow audience indicated that it came principally to hear Mr. Robeson sing, for when he started his after singing sppech a large portion of the audience left."

The quote lacks context and no explanation is given to why exactly they all left (e.g. they did not like his politics, they did not like politics in general, they were not allowed to vote anyway); the quote will be removed. The quote is superfluous anyway. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Proquest vs. Papers citations
I'm switching all my citations on buy per article to proquest which is accessible through all major universities and libraries - at the very least. Once you are logged in they are for free. People that can't get to a library can easily find the article by googling it and then make the decision to buy it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources: newspapers, U.S. Congressional Hearings, FBI archives
I will be using the United States Congressional Hearing as citations, but like newspapers and the FBI archives, they have to be filtered through a professional author 1st. First the author says X was the case, and when the primary source says X was the case, then and only then the primary online source is usable but has to be protected by a professional author citation tucked away in the online source to ensure that the statement is not cherry picked. There's thousands of sources so this article should be able to get quality sources from across the political spectrum. The newspaper sources are problematic because a teeny tiny newspaper or a blog could have a veritable Michelangelo editorialist, but if they are that good then they will get their due sooner or later but not on the back of this article; I am sorry. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Online media sources
Online media sources are a last resort. I don't intend on deleting them. But I will tuck them away into another citation because it just takes too long to verify what they are supporting. I have not figured out how to do this yet, but Amy Goodman will be tucked away after her initial use, somehow. Also, Robeson 2001 will be tucked away in a different fashion because I want to keep the cf. thingies. It allows editors to rewrite my version of events very quickly if they so desire. As an example, in what year did Robeson join the debate team, i dunno, and i don't think it's worthwile to spend oodles of hours on it, someone may want to and I say godspeed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I put the book, the author and the page number in the article; they are good to go. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Fritz Pollard again
Robeson was a tremendous hero to Pollard. It's in Carroll's book. Im kind of trying to figure out how to work out the Narranganset stuff and avoid the name dropping. However, it is duly noted that Pollard was a pallbearer at Robeson's funeral (and he now is the only pallbearer I know of). There's a whole bunch of stuff with the segregation of the NFL, Pollard becoming bankrupt, Robeson going to bat for Pollard and getting him a job during the depression when Robeson was making a ton of cash, Robeson getting involved with MLB. So...I'm just looking at it all. (NO author says this, but: Robeson had the cash to buy an NFL team circa 1930 and had the means to support it through difficult times - he could have unilaterally changed American sports history.)66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind, Bert Bell's wife was the source for his cash to buy the Philadelphia Eagles and she was a vaudeville actress. The way I am reading Robeson is that he was at a much higher plane than Frances Upton. The money Robeson was making was mindblowing. But no one has mentioned money in this article yet so I can not mention money. Sooner or later this article will have a problem because Robesone, basically, dies destitute after being, at one time, filthy rich. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The NFL changed in 1932 when George Preston Marshall became an owner - for good and bad. Too bad no author has looked at this w respect to Robeson because from what I read of Carroll, et. al., Robeson had the passion for football (but NO author mentions anything about him having an entrepreneurial spirit). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I kinda like that this article does not mention money specifically though. It keeps it at a higher plateau. And those wikpedia formatnum templates annoy me anyway.66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pro robeson vs. con robeson
Guys pick a better fight then what i write about his father's death. There's plenty of time to let politics get involved. It's his father for goodness sake. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Rutgers section length
Looks to be 4 sentences too long, maybe 5. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC) removed this among others Also, during his freshman year he began a four year relationship with off-campus basketball teams, first with a New Brunswick YMCA team and then with St. Christopher's team in Harlem, in order to participate in post-game mixers. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * looks close to correct length now 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Although he had previously given thoughts to become a minister, he had decided he would attend law school. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * wiped out an extra 2k bytes 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

delete this too: He thought about quitting the team, but his visiting brother, Ben, convinced him not to do so. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Philoclean society looks like it needs to be wiped out. According to the wikipedia article it ended in 1932. Thats an extra 50 bytes that can be deleted :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Robeson and Pollard were the first two African Americans to make the same All American list. That is left out of this article because it belongs in History of... article. It's off topic. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Robeson takes the pulpit
That's put in, and I believe should be left in, because it shows Robeson speaking publically at an early age and not to thwart efforts from someone builiding a case that Robeson was apostate. What's left out of this article is that there was regularly scheduled, at least once a week, religious observances that all the students attended during his college career. That's in the Rutgers history book written in the the 1920s which I perused. It's not mentioned here because it only has one sentence on Robeson in it. I believed I have read a criticism of Duberman's book where the author claimed Duberman was making such an accusation. My reading comprehension is not that good but I have not got that sense from his book, and even if I did, Robeson went to church every Sunday in his youth and his father was a minister so that ends that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read the archives
I dunno, I would have just avoided the introduction and went on with the article. I am kind of comfortable with his early days and rutgers university sections. I absolutely hate editing any introduction of any article. As far as Paul Robeson Jr. not being scholarly or not npov, um, Tex Maule can not hardly be considered npov or scholarly, he is the biggest cheerleader for the NFL, but I cite him. The spanish civil war in the archives i find as an interesting topic in the archives. But every author I have read has been able to discern a different pivotal moment in his life and also a different turning point in his life.
 * If Jr. is not npov, then lets get another author to counter him, no biggie. The point is to give the readers the information to explore leads to discover what they feel is the truth. Lay out all notable verifiable sources and then just walkaway. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as his football skills are concerned, well Walter Camp by and large did not actually go and watch many games (lol) and there was no ESPN. I think MacCambridge may have to be brought in. As of the publication of MacCambridge's book, MacCambridge specifically says that Robeson is the greatest football in the history of Rutgers University. Now, if you take 35 players per year (approximate number) and multiply it by 150, then Robeson would easily be in the top 10 in the history of college football at the time his college career ended. Number 1 on of all time by Robeson's day of course has to be Jim Thorpe, if not factually, then on legend alone. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The NFL was built upon the legend of Jim Thorpe and not necessarily on his playing skills in 1920. People flocked to see him play. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with MacCambridge is that his statement is parochial to Rutgers. There's a big todo also in that Rutgers University students are, as one might expect, very protective of their university's distinguished history.66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Parents' pictures Moving his Parent's pictures to Wikipedia commons
Should his parent's pictures be in this article? If so, then copy and paste it back in.

66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to figure out how to move his parents' pictures to wikipedia commons. It looks like they do not belong in this article since noone has complained. I see no reason why they should be lost although I am entirely confident the official website of robeson will have them sometime in the future if they do not have them now. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Disputed Nuts to Mr. Robeson
The Chicago Defender writes: "We always thought Mr. Robeson should have stayed in the concert, now we are more certain that before." The Chicago Defender utterly lambastes Robeson. The citation is been used extremely tangential to its purpose. There are scholarly articles journals that look how the black papers treated Robeson in the 1950s.

That article does not mention the word AP.

And the Chicago Defender (in 1949) can not be used as a citation to say that they were the only ones that question something on the day the Chicago Defender printed it. 65.88.88.203 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the citation just got bounced around and ended up in the wrong spot. What do I know. 65.88.88.203 (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Philoclean Society
It ended in 1932 at Rutgers. Robeson was a valedictorian of his class and graduated with a degree in law from Columbia University, which at the time was one of the best law schools in the country. The Philoclean Society is not significant. It is small in comparison to his other accomplishments. Moving to delete because its inconsequential and a dead end. I don't like dead ends. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Removing Philoclean Society will allow me to chop down from 4 paragraphs in Rutgers to 3. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

3 paragraphs for rutgers would be ideal. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 paragraphs it is, now just need to copy edit it and fix citations. philoclean is gone. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Walter Camp
I'm sick of the greatest end to trot the gridiron quote, its in 100 books ...moving to delete 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Larsen, Rebecca and Holmes, Burnham and McKissack, Pat
Children's book. : delete 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Children's book. Holmes, Burnham. ''Paul Robeson: A Voice of Struggle (Heinemann Library, September 1, 1994) ISBN 0-8114-2381-6 delete 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Children's book: McKissack, Pat, Fredrick McKissack and Michael David Biegel (illustrator). Paul Robeson: A Voice to Remember. Library (Enslow Pub Inc, May 1, 2001), ISBN 0-89490-310-1 delete. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Children's books and fiction are suitable for the "Further reading" section. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * oh, okay, I'll put them all back in then, my bad 65.88.88.203 (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i don't like it though. I am going to try to empty further reading and if all that's left is young adult books, then I will rename it as such. if someone puts a further reading book in, then that means i should read it. i take it at face value that someone says its an important book. i picked up balaji's book and that looks to be a fun one. my understanding was that further reading books were a todo book or books that dealt with topics the article could not/would not cover. I mean, what's the point of the worldcat template? it's like a book of the month club thingie. yuck. But whatever, if you want them in its cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have to empty "Further reading". If a book or article is appropriate for this article, we will probably be using it for something, if only to back up a point that is mentioned by someone else. Anything that we don't use, but might be useful to someone, can go in Further reading. Sub-headings in there for "Children's books", "Fiction" could be very helpful. If not sub-headings, then a short description by those items. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * my bad, to "empty" it i meant to utilize everything in it and then move it up into the materials sections.
 * i spent 2 months moving around a children's book in the Bell article. aptly i put it under a section called young adult reading, then i read that featured articles ran about, on average, a total of 16 sections, so I wiped that idea out - this article has 46. Granted its easier to write a featured article on a subject that is not so complex as Robeson and one that people are many people have very passionate viewpoints....On that note, now I finally understand why problems occur in these type of articles, they naturally read into something and put words in there that they thought they read. It's like when I go to heat up a cup of coffee in the microwave, for some reason I open up the refrigerator and put the cup in there then close the door.
 * on that note also, I will be switching the bibliography section over to like Joseph Priestly's article, see the talk page there when I questioned them. As far as published works goes, Robeson wrote well over 100 articles and we kinda have to bring in he was also a publisher - I forget the magazine name because my mind is toast. So his valedictorian speech can no go unnamed and be placed as a cf. and removed from "primary sources" or as it stands now "published works". 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * also on the children's book specifically, they are at least one source on the his all-american record being wiped in 1917 and 1918. but

i'm not gonna jump the gun on that. I want to make it to 1934 1st because the article can have at least a stable foundation. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Freedomways fixes
the editors mixed the magazine edition with the book edition and the book edition has different page numbers. marie seton's article is a direct copy and paste of her 1958 book according to the book. I'll fix them and remove the dispute tags. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Helpful, thank you. I found the referencing confusing. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Posthumous honors for the record by 1982
monuments and memorials 29, poems about 120 ...so its not really good idea to start naming them. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In a 1929 entry in his diary
In a 1929 entry in his diary, Robeson expressed the thought that his career and marriage were part of a "higher plan", writing: "God watches over me and guides me. He's with me and let's me fight my own battles and hopes I'll win.
 * This looks to be a defense by an editor against a perceived insult by Duberman claiming that Robeson was apostate. I've spoken on this before and I'll still stuck in 1921, but it's not going to last. I find it analagous to Bert Bell son's response to veiled attempts that to intimate his father was a racist; here's the record, leave me alone. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just Football Authors
Football authors are disputing some stuff here and can fill in some gaps. It might just be some sections need a lil touching up. I'm investigating:


 * 1) Here's Oriard, King Football, p. 301. "Initially, northern schools refused to accommodate southern prejudices but as intersectional ambitions grew, principles gave way to expedience. Rutgers in 1917 had refused to hold Paul Robeson out of a game with West Virginia..."
 * 2) Here's Levy, Tackling Jim Crow, pp. 1-2., "Paul Robeson, for one, was denied entry, after auditioning, for a men's chorus [ Glee club ] ;...Robeson was told that a "'pitch problem' would make him 'stick out'"
 * 3) Here's Levy, pp. 31-32., "How Robeson did all this-sing, act, go to law school, play pro football-is a staggering thought. But he did it. He would go to classes during weekdays, sing and act at various theaters in the evenings, hop the train from New York to Akron every Friday (presumably studying en route), practice with the team on Saturday, play on Sunday, head back to New York on Sunday night, and be back in class on Monday morning! [He was an average student at law school and his heart was not fully in it], Given all that was on 'his plate' how could it?" emphasis is the Levy's.

It's easy to fall into the trap of becoming an apoligist, but, umm, that's a pretty sick schedule Robeson had. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Levy, is reinforcing Duberman, and presenting strong evidence why Robeson's grades suffered
 * 2) The whens are placed in the columbia law school section because the article needs to state if the plays, musicals, whatever were during the football season or not
 * 3) Levy says Robeson played for the Pros in 1920. Levy's book predates a lot of the great work the Professional Football Researchers Association has done since 2000. Levy just went with the citable sources he had available :)
 * 4) I like exact dates in the beginnings of an article because it allows you to really do deep research if u need 266.234.33.8 (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gold or glory?

I deleted the uncited statement about earned extra money by doing this. But, it's kind of important to find an author that explains why he played pro football. It is clearly known he got involved with the arts because he loved it. I have no info on Why he decided to play football unless it was because he and Pollard were friends, and would become lifelong friends with Pollard eventually being is his business manager for a sizable portion of his artistic life (according to Levy). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports's Illustrated then go to page 3:

On the occasion of Robeson's graduation more than a half century ago:
 * All hats off to Robey, men,
 * All honor to his name!
 * On the diamond, court or football field
 * He's brought old Rutgers fame.

that's a good one.66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated is the authorative source on football in, at the very least, the 1960s and 1970s. I've thought about this all day. But that hymn, song, poem or tribute is pretty much mandatory for this article, imho. 3 paragraphs looks to be the right amount for Rutgers. Maybe 14 sentences between the 3 paragraphs and then that tribute. Maybe go 12 sentences and then that tribute?

Fritz Pollard: I will try to find out if Robeson expressed his feelings to Pollard why he quit pro football. Clearly, sources are all over the place that Jim Crow was prevalent in the midwestern towns, unlike at Rutgers. But no source I have seen says he was digusted about that. Finding reliable sources for his time w the Badgers, and not being accused of original research, I think would be a major headache 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I know nothing of Duberman. But, I know of Sports Illustrated, and in that timeframe, they were indisputably the best. It's coming in. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I put it in. I don't know how to do any fancy formatting stuff. You might have to delete it sooner or later cause this article is kind of long...but I like it for now; it's cool 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rutgers never played William and Mary (at least not while Robeson was in college.

MacCambridge shows rutgers not playing them either. Someone confused william and marry, probably, with washington and lee or washington and jefferson or west virginia 65.88.88.202 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

first time ever georgia tech played rutgers in a regular season game was 1921 65.88.88.202 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Rutgers was not on their schedule according to MacCambridge (2009)
 * 2) Georgia Tech was not on their schedule according to MacCambridge (2009)
 * 3) Georgia created a national story when its governor did not want Georgia Tech to play in the 1956 Sugar Bowl. The Wikipedia article has a good beginning on it, but Demas devotes a whole chapter to the story behind the game. So, someone might have been confused in this edit on November 6, 2010  or possibly Duberman was confused.
 * 4) Two teams that were on their schedule according to MacCambridge were West Virginia  for November 11, 1916 and William and Lee on October 14, 1916, and the the New York Times gives accounts of those games on the next day, respectively,  and confirms Rutgers played those teams. In their accounts of the game, the New York Times takes the time to call them Southern colleges.
 * 5) In the 5th game of the season, Robeson played against West Virgina, according to the NYT's account the next day
 * 6) In the 2nd game of the season, Robeson is not listing as playing against William and Lee
 * 7) Now the troubling part. In order to check if it was a fluke I had to look at the first game of the season. MacCambridge says Rutgers was at home and they played Villanova in the first game of the season, on October 7, 1916. However, the next day's accounts of college games in the NYT does not mention Rutgers even playing and to add the confusion, Villanova is reported to have played at their home field on October 7, 1916 against a team called ...err.. I didn't write it down I guess. But I think it's like Hatledge College, iow, some college I never heard of. Someone needs to go back and look at Duberman.

Note:The New York Times is supporting Oriard to some extent. The NYT does not mention if they were asked to take Robeson out of the game (remember that key word "Southern" in both articles though). My gut says it was William and Lee, and Rutgers took Robeson out of the game. And when WV asked them to take Robeson, Rutgers was like, no way, he's our best player (BTW, MacCambridge lists Robesons as the greatest Rutgers player of all time. )66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I read either 4 or 5 accounts of games, I only had an hour, and I kind of got sidetracked because Bert Bell and the U of Penn had articles right next to Rutgers (and they were like 10 times as large as Rutgers and on a side note, Lyons is right, Bell did have trouble recovering punts, lol) but in those articles, the NYT is mentioning that he dwarfed the other players physically. I think what I said is logical, the coach of rutgers just refused to take him out of the second game, if indeed he did take him out for the first game. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll request Duberman's book be delivered to me, but I hope he has notes where he get his info from. It's kind of important to look at an author's notes. Everyone makes mistakes and if you doublecheck stuff maybe you can catch mistakes. I got either Villanova or the NYT over a barrel on October 7-8, 1916, and one of them is going down. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Kind of interesting Bell and Robeson were contemporaries. Another contemporaries of theirs was Fritz Pollard. Fritz Pollard played for Brown University and Brown and Rutgers played on October 28, 1916. Generally speaking the NYT devoted tons more space to Ivy League games so this is a must look at game. On October 2, 1915, Rutgers played Princeton, another must look at game. On November 25, 1915, Rutgers played NYU, October 27, 1917, Fordham, November 3, 1917, all must look at games. Looking at the 1918 schedule, it appears the big boys were dodging playing rutgers or really, neglected to mention, that WWI impacted that college season - numerous sources. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

October 7, 1916, Villanova 6 - Muhlenberg 0. See under |"Football Results Saturday" on p. 9. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We know Rutgers had a junior varsity team in 1915. I know played Penn had a junior varsity team in 1914. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay got it. Rutgers played a YMCA team on October 1st or September 30 which was the first game of the year (not important what the date was) and Robinson played. Rutgers beat them 96-0, which is an out and out destruction of the team. The New York Times, arguably, listed him as the star of the game. Then they had a bye week (Rutgers was on a lower class of football teams then Yale, Princeton, Harvard, and U of Pennn), probably because they could not schedule anyone to play against. Since he was 6'3" and they trounced the other team there is very, very small chance he got injured. After the bye week, the next week they played William and Lee. He did not play. He had two weeks to recover from an injury and he did not play. Bell was out for 3-4 weeks one time with a broken collarbone. To not play for two weeks is extremely strange. Also, William and Lee did not play them in ensuing years while Robinson was there. Also, in that year he was a starter every game and he did not play against William and Lee. His first year he was a subsitute and on one occassion did not play a game, which is not noteworthy. The problem with West Virginia is: he played against them in his sophomore year and they returned to play him in his junior year (I did not look if he played against them because it's not important).

Really, I would, at the very least fall back, if Duberman permits, to "at least one team demanded Rutgers not play Robeson". Two teams is not really important; you only need one to give a claim that racism existed at the time. Really you probably should be wise and do what I did with Bell:...oh know you can't do this cause he's in college :( ==See also== 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * History of African Americans in the NFL

I got Duberman's book now. I see where the confusion is. Duberman writes on p. 22 "Among Rutger's Southern opponents in football, William and Mary and Georgia Tech simply refused to play against a black man." Which I would say would be true, but they didn't play Rutgers. He was benched against William and Lee later in the paragraph and continued on p. 23. Also, yep, it was West Virginia that requested he'd be benched, and yep Coach Sanford refused...yay, oh, btw, the coach from West Virgina was Greasy Neale, so it's no surprise it was West Virginia. 65.88.88.216 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * slightly off topic here, but football scholars are all over Neale for being a blatant racist. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Duberman writes on Robeson, possibly, getting as much as $1,000 a game to play professional football on p. 34. Ummm, thats like totally ridiculous and is actually comical (I'm just laughing thinking about it). He could have played 2 games and just bought the whole team, lol. But whatever, I'll check it out66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a knock on Duberman. He prolly just went with the best available evidence (which is kind of interesting); trace down the NFL Draft. In it you should see me posting (w citations) that Whizzer got 1k a game in 1939 and the other owners went bonkers because Rooney paid so much. The average pay was about $100 in 1920, not 1k.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pellowski refers to Larry Pitt as the Rutgers historian. Larry Pitt described Robeson as his hero. Robeson described Malcolm Pitt as his best friend in college and a life-long friend. If those 2 guys are related, then Pitt's book is a must get. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, maybe Robeson did play in 1920. I'll have to check primary sources on that. Otherwise, he could not have met Essie in the hospital because they got married before the 1921 NFL season 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

keepalive to email Mac 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I emailed the nfl and pro football nfl stats guys to update the number of tds Robey scored.66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleats
Ok, found it. It's in The Big Scrum by John J. Miller 9780061744501. In a kind of funny story, the University of Pennsylvania football team went out and bought extra long cleated shoes (I think this was in 1906) for their game against Harvard. Then what they did before the game is they turned on all the sprinklers on the football field the night before the game (how could I make this story up) so that when harvard played the game the next day their cleats were useless (and I think Harvard got pummeled - lol)

In any event, the point of it is that 9 years later, the players trying out for Rutgers with Robey were almost guaranteed to be wearing cleats. I knew cleats came into the game at the very latest by 1934 because of the Sneakers Game. It's not featured article type citation, but without wearing cleats, it's just not believable that he lost fingernails while his hand was palm side up - even with the quality of playing field they played on. I try to find out when cleats came into the game. Really need the word cleats in the sentence. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)