Talk:Paul Robeson/Archive 6

Marie Seton's 1958 v. Paul Robeson: The Great Forerunner as an example, and reprints
Marie's chapter in her 1958 book is reprinted in PR TGR verbatim supposedly. It makes the article uglier to use TGR book, but the TGR will be easier to get than Marie's book. I will order Marie's book, it will take a week to get. The reader/researcher comes first and we want them to read the material themselves so they can come to their conclusions so we should use TGR and then hide, or annotate it was reprinted from Marie's book because that will not be copyright protected soon. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We can use our notes and references to show the link between the two publications, and then readers can obtain whichever one they wish to. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * okay, maybe i'll make a temporary section called notes on bibliography (with those (n = 1) type of things) and explain the links between the books. since it will a nonstandard section, then a experienced wikipedia editor will pick up on it and fix it. i don't know how to do any fancy wikipedia editing. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it can be done without anything fancy, will have a look at what is there now. Some articles have much more complicated referencing if they go back a long time before PR's lifetime. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Broadway v. Savoy Othello
Atkinson writes on p. 401: "Since the energies of the nation were concentrated on the war, the decline in dramatic creativity did not seem surprising. Everyone was living from day to day in a common mood of anxiety; and writers did not have the excess of vigor needed to produce original work. But Broadway did not remain exclusively superficial...."

And then he talks about the Broadway Othello.

The point being is that I think Morrison is going to compare and contrast the 2 othello's and from viewing the NFL history during the war, I think I would support Morrison saying that the Savoy Othello was better and I do not believe Robeson's apex was during WWII; it was before that. Robeson's viewpoint is extremely important (the Bell article - especially the Pittsburgh Steelers section - is bereft of his viewpoint) because it shows what he thought. But Robeson does not get the final say in the matter, that belong to historians, e.g. Morrison. Atkinson is imho is dead on about wwii and it fits in nicely with the nfl during wwii. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * let's remember, there was a war on and things like gasoline were rationed. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * btw, the attendance to nfl games went up during wwii, so, well, there is no economics books here (and I know nothing about economics neither) but any mention of the attendance to othello is on thin ice. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Schapiro, Leonard (1970). The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode
This book is very old. It should not be in further reading. We have adequate coverage available from other contemperaneous sources. I'll get the book and look at it. But I am prejudiced to believe it should be removed. The facts about Stalin's regime are indisputable. We do not need that extremely old book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson archives and Weyand
I'm not reading that stuff. That's for intelligent, professional authors. I listed the books in the article because that means I have checked them to see if they had information on Robeson's football career in 1920, which is a what, where, when topic. Those sources had nothing on it. Once I check a verifiable source for information, I prefer it be placed in the bibliography section (okay, I omitted Weyand 1926, Weyand 1955, and the Dean of Rutgers circa 1925). One of the Weyand books are interesting because Robeson appears to have switched positions from right end to left end between his junior and senior year, but that's too detailed. And Paul Jr. may have made a mistake in his book, which again is too detailed, by calling Robeson the best player in the country based on Weyand's book because if Weyand wrote the players from left to right, then in his senior year, Robeson was a left end and his name was consequently printed at the top of the all-american list. Weyand's books are not that good. The NYT of Robeson's era is vastly superior. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Phi Betta Kappa
I am going to wipe that out I think; it will save a few bytes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to Britain and political involvement (1923–1939)
Thats a real yucky title for a section. C'mon guys, try a better name for the section. No one gets it right the 1st time. Just throw a title at it.66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i'm liking "theatrical and (word for he was a good singer too) preeminence and ideological transformation" as a title. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * theatrical preeminence kind of chops the legs from underneath Othello on Broadway, which I feel is valid. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i don't know any words for "he was a good singer too". so, i did what i could. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stuckey's book
Stuckey's article originally published in a 1976 magazine article and then was printed in a pamphlet/paper back is reprinted in its entirety in his 1994 book, so I swapped the old incomplete source for a easy to get source. Stuckey's 1994 book also contains his intro to the 1988 version of Here I stand. I like to knock things down to one chapter if that's all that relevant to the topic, but once it goes outside the boundary of one chapter, then the whole book has to be brought in. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The original version i read on microfiche, which is a nightmare to get a hand on. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Priestly
I swapped over everything to like the Priestly article is to the best of my ability and understanding. I am sure there are lots of mistakes cause it was 4 hours worth of editing. I installed a key hidden in the text for books that i need to get, formatting that i need to fix, and i think the 1970 soviet union book is not needed - everyone agrees that stalin was one of the biggest mass murderers in history and its an old book anyway and any 2bit newspaper can be used to convey what the common knowledge was during the late 1950s and during the 1960s. The Wilkins book looks to be off topic and there is not much there. And I can have turned sour on MacCambridge so I kinda what that book deleted too. The young adults and tertiary materials sections are fake and just help me to compartmentalize. I would adovoate a specialist book or journal article be included on every important section of his life - harlem renaissance, spanish civil war, passport controversy, visit to russia, visit to australia, the nfl. I go the NFL over a barrel on there, only, 1 td thingie for robeson.

If you want to be a football fan, well, I'm not a green bay fan, but if you want to be football fan, be a green by fan because the milwaukee sentinel and the milwaukee journal archives are just total and complete pure heaven for football history. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * k, a few typos there, i gotta learn to click show preview on the talk page, ahh what can u do 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Multimedia v. Books
Multimedia takes precedence over listing the written book, e.g. Paul Robeson, Citizen of the World 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * some of the dvds seem to be pointing to the same dvd collection 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Reiner, Carl
This is a fiction book: Reiner, Carl. How Paul Robeson Saved My Life and Other Mostly Happy Stories (Cliff Street Books, October 1, 1999), Cassette/Spoken Word (Dove Entertainment Inc, October 1, 1999). ISBN 0-06-019451-0, delete 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keepalive, I want to see if Judith wants to keep this fiction book in the further reading section. It's not there and I don't wanna make her unhappy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Editions
Can we take good care over which editions we mention. There is one very important thing. The edition listed first must match the page numbers given. If a book goes into several editions, then we have two ways to deal with it. Either we only list one edition, and it doesn't really matter which so long as the page numbers are OK. Or we list all the editions we are aware of, for each book. That can quite easily be done just by adding the ISBNs for each. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * we list one edition and we make sure page matches. people can use worldcat to find a edition thats available to them. all page numbers for all citations will be checked over and over and over again. right now some citations dont even have page numbers. the article becomes too complicated and is not pretty to look at with all those isbn numbers. on a similar note, I really don't like to list 3 different authors for the book freedomways; it's just not pretty. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * i don't put citations in unless I have the source right in front of me. it's possible that someone wrote to the state department and had declassified correspondences sent to them, or they found a website that lists them but neglected to included it, or they read the backwater today and cited it, but i have a strong feeling that people are cheating on citations. using a source whose only location is a library in the swiss alps is really hard to verify - that being said, worldcat is wrong alot. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * let me rephrase, if you put a citation in for the 2nd edition of a book and there is 5 editions, and then I change it to the 5th edition and you feel uncomfortable, then revert it. secondly i have access to every latest edition of every book (but that Henry Foner book I can not find in the public domain), so I think the latest edition should be used and should be swapped in for older editions whenever possible. If for some reason, you want to use your particular edition, then I don't have a problem. Once the older books copyrights wear out, then if its the same book and its online, then that becomes the most preferred book to use. That Stewart book I put the isbn # in for the paperback book and I used the hardcover. I don't know if that's the reason know this article incorrectly lists the page # as 72 v. 69 (or vice versa), but I'll fix it tomorrow.


 * I summarize everything I possibly can except for online citations cause feature articles prefer them: (Foner: 212) is way more summarized then "http:// Retrieved on..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, for audiobooks we can use 2 ISBNs, one for the book and one for the audiobook. That's preferred for the visually impaired. All audiobooks take precedence in the bibliography section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And yes I did see the picture of Robeson in Stewart's book is claimed to be of the 1920 Akron Pros. I just need to find out where this Robert Smith Collection is held. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

1920 akron pros
Everything, but Carroll and the PRFA, fits with Robeson playing for the 1920 Akron Pros in their final game of the season in the first undefeated season in the history of the NFL. I'll be double checking the Chicago papers next week. But my confidence level is high. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem Carroll and the PRFA have is that photographers, generally speaking-near as my limited knowledge is, put dates on the back of their pictures. I honestly do not see any escape for the NFL, Carroll, or the PRFA on this. I think I got them over a barrel. And I would like to thank one professional author for graciously getting back to me, whom shall remain nameless. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

btw, larry pitt, was the nephew of Robeson's best friend at Rutgers, according to his book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * so his college football career will need to be tweeked with the word/words instinctive/instinctive ability. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * actually the whole section needs tweaking, i just do the best job i can 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The roster, which is includes subsitutes, is listed in the Chicago defender and chicago tribue. Robeson is not on either papers rosters.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Law School and Voodoo
I left out him meeting Brown. Also, unless I am reading it wrong, Boyle and Bunie incorrectly write he was involved with Shuffle Along before Taboo in 1922. The page numbers are listed, rewrite it as you feel necessary. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Also, left out lack of Jim Crow and meeting prominent expatriates.
 * put in brown, left out: "mary hoyt wiborg, who was as rich in money as she was poor in talent..." 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

However, I use Boyle and Bunie's interpretation of events in saying he co-matriculated, which is probably not a real English word, at Marquette. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Whistling mistake
This is the wrong year, it was 1922, and we are not using Susan's book for citations: In 1924 when unable to whistle for a performance in Taboo, he sang a spiritual instead, pleasing both the cast and audiences. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Marquette and NYU
I definitely end up deleting would like to delete Marquette just on it being too detailed and off topic. Boyle and Bunie are on extremely thin ice saying he attended Marquette, Carroll is the only one that hints at it. Boyle and Bunie really have no source on that and if they are trying to use Carroll as a source then that would be a very bad move. NYU and Bed-Sty are tough to delete, though I want to because it would save precious bytes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Harlem renaissance (1923-1928)
new section 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I made up a rule in the Bell article, no going 3 sentences without mentioning his name. 2 is dangerous, 3 a no go. Any sentence that does not include he, or Robeson, is subject to deletion, so delete:
 * This work was later adapted by George and Ira Gershwin as the opera Porgy and Bess.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Robeson 1930
Essie is crucial for offering her interpretation of certain events. But she's his wife and in the united states the wife can not be called to testify against her husband so she has to be deprecated about certain events in his life. The fundamental events surrounding Stotesbury I have not changed it's just I don't want to use her as a source, especially in a book that is almost 100 years old. She was a very powerful and intelligent person, but we need modern day heavy hitters for this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I consider Pauli a modern day heavy hitter. If he's naturally biased that's not my job, his rendition is open to attack from modern day authors that are not biased toward Robeson because of bloodline. Pauli has been writing about his father's life for at least 40 years. That makes him an expert in my eyes. If he writes something that some may construe as biased, then it's up to a professional author to attack him. But, I am not in the censoring business, I am in the citing business. I will be more than happy to include any source that attack's his son's viewpoint; I have no emotional entanglements. But a 100 year old book is a no-go except in 1 and only 1 instance (Seton only gets 1 shot too, her book is way too old also.) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And, btw, I am not including any author that says Pauli's works "is largely dismissed by modern historians" blah blah blah. Authors need to provide point by point attack on Pauli's work--- it's an editor's job to write Paul's work "has largely been dismissed on a point by point basis" (citations here). I want names, I want places, I want events, and I want dates. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * authors are authors and should do their job, editors just edit and summarize...I just summarize. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Luciano Pavarotti
Can we get an .ogg file for old man river, that article is pretty cool. I would vote for the original version please. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Emotions of Robeson
How can I say this, the Bell article suffers because it does not portray his feelings, his emotions, his passion for the game of football. But Robeson is a vastly more complicated individual than Bell. I'll have to doublecheck on Abraham Lincoln but ... Robeson's emotions and his feelings and his sentiments and his thoughts about certain events should not be ignored. Generally speaking, we needs his feeling about events in his life, at the very least, in every section and perhaps once every paragraph. Colluquially, we need to keep it real. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yates' book
Yates book was attacked in a book review. The reviewer said to use Thisa's book. So... I think like Boyle and Bunie say, the spanish civil war was a funky lil thing and we need to go with the best. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yates book is a nogo. I got the page number for the citation that is missing a page number. He basically just says "I heard Robeson was in the country". I think the Chicago Defender was in country when Robeson landed. The other guy's book (Thisa?) is a nogo too. Like BB says, it was a cause celebre for the left and we need to find a book on that. There is a book I looked at something along volunteers in wars from 1860 to 1941, but of course, since the Abraham Lincoln Brigade is extremely well researched, the author decided to choose the volunteers for Franco which is a total shame, the book looked awesome. Thisa's John Tisa's book leads to the main ABL book. The Chicago Defender should be able to provide an online proquest citation backed up by b&b, doobie, and the main abl guy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) deleted:


 * Yates, James (1989). Mississippi to Madrid: Memoir of a Black American in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Seattle: Open Hand Pub. ISBN 0940880202

This is the author on ABL: Stradling, R. A. He's a heavy hitter on the SCW. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bay Area Paul Robeson Centennial Committee
I only want to give them one citation per page. [Dr.?] Amanda Casabianca is obviously a much more intelligent person than me, but citing any one of her pages more than once is dangerous. She is an ardent advocate of Robeson, which I have no problem with. I don't know of any wikipedia rule that says that we can not cite web pages that support, arguably or blatantly, depending on your viewpoint, biased online sources. But she provides an online what, when, where version of events. And if some of the stuff that she wrote is pro-Robeson and it is ancillary to what I am trying to cite, then I dont care unless theres a wikipedia rule against it. I don't see any major problems with anything she wrote. But, I am not going to include that Robeson was the greatest individual of the 20th century as she writes. If she supports my citation that he preferrred coke over pepsi, or vice versa, and then writes later in the webpage he was the greatest thing since slice bread, then I do not care. But I will most assuredly look for a webpage that states only that he liked coke over pepsi. I'm not in the censoring business, I'm in the citing business. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"the first black actor to portray Shakespeare's Othello with an otherwise all-white cast."
No He wasn't. Ridiculous claim. Othello had been played by black actors under those conditions in the UK on several occasions in the 19C. . Perhaps may be true of the US, but should be amended accordingly if so, although I would argue that such a 'factoid' would be irrelevant and exhibit a needless Americocentric bias. Jatrius (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this article has lots of mistakes. You are welcome to edit this article as you please, especially if you can bring a non-Americocentric viewpoint to it. I'm only up to the year 1921 and I know absolutely nothing of the arts. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, I have the harlem renaissance in the sandbox and I'm looking it over.
 * Specifically, I have no idea what "His voice could descend as low as C below the bass clef." means, I have only taken one music class in my life and I failed it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lil frustrated
reading between the lines, Robeson looks to have been doing what many post-graduates did when entering the big city. He enjoyed the night-life a little which is a rational and logical explanation for Essie's complaints about him slumming and sleeping until noon. This fits in perfectly w Carroll's rendition of events w Pollard and Duke Slater. A bit of American puritanical views came into vogue sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. But, sources are lacking for an explanation of why Robeson slept until noon and Essie complained of his slumming so I can't write anything about it and it is probably too detailed off topic anyway.

Really, authors are pretty vague on why Robeson got so intent on acting. Clearly they show him all over the place at the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture library and by 1921 Gilpin had already won the Spingarn medal. My opinion is pretty clear that he wanted the acclaim Gilpin received (although I do not know his motivation) and I am uncertain how much Essie pushed him in that direction. This article would be much easier to write, like I have said, if Essie was not such a powerful figure. (cf. b&b 115) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he had no concern over the social implications of All God's Chillun Got Wings and his focus was on being terrified of performing badly on stage, speaks volumes. And of course, from my standpoint in editing, Essie was, unfortunately, there every step of the way helping him to study for his role. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * actually, his motivation is a why thing, that's probably best left for a better editor than me to write about. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Robeson became engaged with the ..." socio-political discourse....blah blah blah... 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC) "Lacking complete focus..."blah blah blah 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is w Robeson in the 1920s, alot like the NFL in the 1930s, 1940s, and the 1950s, stuff is hidden away in non-publicized meetings. Do we take Bell's word in the 1950s that he was for treating the players fairly while the value of NFL team was skyrocketing, and do we take Robeson's word in the 1920s that he was apolitical? Generally speaking, we have to take his word at face value. So that means he was affected by the words at Schomburg but his primary concern was in escalating his fame to his own satisfactior or to please Essie -> that's where I am headed. Of course, I could be wrong :) and I'll try to stay away from that, but that's my feeling at this time. Did everything he heard at Schomburg have a lasting effect on him, yes, but not right away. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Essie is such a nightmare to deal with. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

nascent, extant, bourgeouis
i've never used any of those words before in a sentence in my life. it's an extremely hard sentence to write. i'm kind of sick of reading in 100 books what his secretary said about dictation. it's a rough draft, there was racism, did he really want to be a lawyer-no, did he really know what he wanted to be in his life-no, left out is Essie; she's a nightmare to deal with. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you need the reason for his passport withdrawal in the lead. it was over anti-Imperialism not the CPUSA. Its getting messy so stay focused. Nice hard work though. Don't be shocked if a lot of it get re-edited at some point. Edit: only because this website shifts a lot but TRULY GREAT JOB!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.118.132 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not there yet. But I would totally agree that it was, at the very least, based somewhat on anti-Imperialism or perhaps even more to keep the Soviet Union check in that region and even better, a result a doctrine of gradualism (if there is such a thing), or the fact that Truman wanted to get reelected so he did not want to shake the boat (I've really soured over Truman's concern to be reelected and it's really just a nightmare that McCulough has lil comment on it). I looked at McCulough(sic?)'s biography on Truman; that episode is not really mentioned....I'll have to go back and check Truman's bio and stuff but his rating as a president has gone up alot after he left office. Truman just wiped out Nagasaki and Hiroshima and there's the Holocaust to deal with and then something was happening with Israel and Palestine during that timeframe. Everyone points to 1968 as this big thing, but 1946-1949 were really complicated years. I dunno, you tell me. I'm focusing on the HR; that's it for now. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * HR-> Harlem renaissance.

I really just ignore the introduction. I honestly don't know what's in it. The introduction is a consensus among authors. I want to run and gun up until Robeson's meeting with Truman over lynching. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nesbitt, Francis Njubi (2004). Race for Sanctions: African Americans against Apartheid, 1946-1994. is also a tremendously great book. I wish the author could have limited his comments on Robeson to just 1 chapter though, just based on, if I can limit a book's viewpoint to 1 chapter on wikipedia it saves reading. That's cause I'm lazy and dont wanna read whole books :) it's really another must read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Schomburg Center
I am extremely biased towards the Schomburg Center. I love it. No authors mention that the library at 135th and Lenox is the Schomburg Center. But it's the Schomburg Center. I dont know when it was renamed the Schomburg Center, but I like the name in the article although it may be an anachronism and have to be removed based on some Wikipedia rule that I know nothing about. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wintz
I view his book that I listed as a masterpiece. But what do I know. I think it needs to be a secondary source. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Captain of rutgers football team - nope - Washington and Lee game again
It's sitting in the Bell article that Bell was the captain of the football team. Robeson was not elected captain of the football team as Paul Jr. points out but there is enough already in the rutgers section about Robeson's dealing with race relations on the football team. Furthermore, Bell, unlike Robeson, was able to be demonstrative on the football field and was known for giving loud directions to his teammates and far and away the most important reason I left it out is that the section is large enough already. Paul Jr. glossed over this in one sentence and let what his father said go at that. Paul Jr. should have analyzed it more thoroughly and given us his opinion on it rather than letting his father's statement, paraphrasing, this is the way "the white world operated". Paul Jr. is right, it was a slight, but we lost some football history here. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I still agree it's a nogo on not mentioning lack of captaincy. But on him being benched against Washington and Lee during the sequicentential celebration when there were over 2,000 former alumni in attendance, that has to be added. That has to be in the article. It must have stung him really badly with everyone partying and celebrating and he was tossed to the sidelines. Also, bear in mind, his benching was a game-time decision when the preparations for the celebration must have been going on for weeks, if not months, and he in all likelihood knew of the forthcoming celebrations. The benching was bad, the benching with all this in mind was cruel, especially when you consider he was probably the best, or close to the best player on the team at the time66.234.33.8 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Coretta Scott King
Her interpretation of Robeson's later years is utterly refuted by Bell, Charlotte Turner (1986). Paul Robeson's Last Days in Philadelphia Bryn Mawr: Dorrance Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 0805930264. I have not read Robeson Jr., 2010 yet, but King's public comments on Robeson's death seems to be, at this time, not accurate. I am not going to jump the gun on that era, but full text reading of sources is always warranted. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

DOZENS of sources including medical records refute Bell. Her books is a love letter not a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.118.132 (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * okay, well, it's a good thing I'm just focusing on the HR now. If there is more than one, please list any other source besides Duberman and Pauli. The reason is, I might change it from: Theatrical ascension and ideological transformation (1923–1939) to ...errr...well Theatrical career and (something here) (1923-1945) ...people like choosing names of sections; I hate doing that. But the reason is, I might just skip from 1946 until he gets his passport restored. That seems to be what everyone is fighting about. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

YMCA v. YWCA
It looks to be the YWCA. See The New York Times on May 11, 1924 in an article entitled Who's Who One YMCA in harlem was erected in 1933 on 135th between Lenox and 7th. That might be where the mistake was. There's a plaque on the building denoting this fact. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All God's Chillun Got Wings
Complicated. The Time magazine notes/relevant quote in the reference section needs to be wiped out because they are redundant and it needs to be in the body of the article. I think the relevant quotes are wonderful utilized and it pains me to have to wipe them out, but the problem is, through all the controversy that was occuring because of the play, Robeson was uniquely terrified over how he would perform. That's kind of the most important thing associated with this article - he had blinders on and focused solely on his performances. The controversy about the play has to be brought in though. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

HR
Sources are conflicting on what transpired in 1923. It's kind of confusing. But I think Robeson was aware of all the acclaim that Gilpin received, and, probably more importantly, Robeson just liked being an actor. I put in the edit summary my thoughts. Its open to interpretation, but I feel it's best just to write something, anything because maybe it will spark someone to properly illuminate the facts. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article sections I want to change from 1923-1939 to 1923-1945
So maybe I was wrong before. Maybe I'll change it again. After 1945 there was no more theatre. It was all political. This will allow the artistic people to concentrate on that era and the political people to concentrate on post wwii. 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk)
 * I'm doing it presently. Whether it is a true life changing event, I do not know. But it follows Nollen's interpretation, and for someone like me who knows nothing about the arts (and politics for that matter), it is easier to compartmentalize. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguably clouded
That's in the NYT review of the play. The review says something to the effect "after the dust has settled down" ...here's review. Robeson (going from memory here) had little talent. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it and I put it in as a citation. Go to your library to see the review. The review is very unflattering. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Broadway Othello is way over the top
"the audience gave the cast a twenty-minute standing ovation, for ten curtain calls." That needs to be dished out to another article that is way, way, way, way too detailed. No way does that pass muster even with a theatrically inclined editor when one considers everything in this article. 22:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk)

Pan-africanism
This is another, of many subjects that I know nothing about. It's a fun subject and I look forward to learning about it, much more so whether or not Robeson sang in bass clef G or whatevr that stuff is. I am really sorry but whether he sang in the c note or g note or b or d or e or f note is kind of boring. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

All authors are kinda screwing up
You guys are kind of messing up. Robeson was clearly a world class athlete. Yes, he stumbled on stage, yes, he was apprehenive in his roles ...i don't watch dancing w the stars, but this is a unique individual that really has not been portrayed properly onstage. You artistic folks have not accounted for what must have must have been his grace on the stage and, you have to realize, football in the 1910s and 1920s was not like today. Robesone was, imho, a fearless individual. Do not understimate what a tough dude Robeson was. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Plots, co-stars, directors, producers
I know nothing of the arts. I am trying to relate it to football so then I would say that a brief synopsis of the play/movie is in order, co-stars are also acceptable if they are hall of fame type of people, producers are like nfl owners so that wipes them out, the theatre where it occurred, okay its like the stadium, i can live with it. So that's it, the producers are out. Bert Bell was an owner so the producers belong on a higher level. I'm going with that. In a particular play or move or in a super bowl, you can mention the owner/producer, but not in a biography of someone's life unless you are describing a special relationship. O'neill and Robeson had a special relationship and Carl Van Vechten seems to be popping up all over the place. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the problem you have is some of these plays only last for 3 or 4 days, or a couple of months;there is no way you need to mention the producers in that case 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * and if its a short lived play and i can get an online citation that includes mentioning where the play occurred, then I will wipe that also. If its a highly successful play, k, i'll mention it even if an online citation includes where it occurred. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the director is like a football coach and the writer is like the general manager...and the general manager is not important, except for o'neill, near as i can tell, that wipes out the writer 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

so that's it, i'm wiping out general managers/writers and owners/producers...off topic-too detailed, except for o'neill 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Vechten's name looks to be needed to this article, imho. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

i'm comfortable w that66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you're trying to keep it concise and on-topic. But good editing of this needs a feel for what is important in cultural history. Mrs Patrick Campbell is important, but that is only clear if you know that she is connected to George Bernard Shaw. PR was in shows that had important writers, important directors, and important co-stars. It is quite tricky. I would say, leave it all in for now, and editors like me and Malik will take out any detail that isn't needed. I will ask Malik to come back to the article again. It is only a few of us editing at the moment. User:Snowded is our man for anything connected to Wales. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly said, I'm there now. That's what I'll do. I'll bring in my elementary grade level analysis of the play and a synopsis of the plays. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like this. It's boring to read. It's an insignificant movie. I would delete it.


 * Robeson played both a conniving preacher, and his twin brother. Disapproving of seeing a preacher as a negative character, the New York Motion Pictures Commission ordered Micheaux to reduce that part. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted the 2nd sentence re: censors, belongs in the movie article 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Gilpin
I have spent several hours trying to work out the grammar for including Gilpin in this article. I personally think its Gilpin winning the Spingarn Award that cause Robeson to focus on acting. But there's no source that says that. Gilpin should not be included in this article. If you folks are not aware, Emperor Jones is still being discussed in either Modern Drama or Drama, I cant remember the name of the magazine, in 2009 and 2005. Suffice it to say the plot is being analyzed by all these big words I do not understand, Benjamain Theory and Tragedy Theory, etc. Gilpin belongs in the Emperor Jones article.

This is the way I have it in the sandbox which is waaaay off topic and you can see the citations are bouncing all over the place:

As Chillun's opening was delayed, he was thrust into The Emperor Jones as Brutus, which was a role originally made famous by Charles Sidney Gilpin.

Generally speaking, citation page numbers should show a natural progression.

If you want to include catch phrases, special ideas, or people, it can cause the article's grammar to suffer tremendously. Gilpin is toast as far as I am concerned because I find it too cumbersome to include him in this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If I wrote a biography on Robeson, I would feel absolutely no remorse in writing: "Robeson, in all likelihood, had read and, equally as likely, learned of the tremendous success Gilpin received for his portrayal of Brutus in Emperor Jones and this was, at the very least, a catalyst to Robeson being further attracted to a theatrical career."


 * But there is no professional author that states that. So Gilpin is toast. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Including Gilpin would require placing him back in 1920, including him winning the Spingarn, and including one author's specious account of Robeson having turned down the role of Brutus before Gilpin accepted it and also Robeson's views on why he wanted to be an actor - to elevate his people. I do not believe the author(s) that say he turned the role. I dunno, maybe I will reevaluate this. I kind of view all authors lack of including my aforementioned belief as negligence on their part. There is no way in the world Gilpin's success would have alluded Robeson. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the Columbia Law School gave him a seat of honor, online citation even available from the New York Times to boot, over the whole Gilpin controversy at him not possibly being placed in attendance in some special theatrical dinner. It's ridiculous and absurd to claim that Robeson did not know about Gilpin's success. But there is no professional author that states that. So Gilpin is toast.66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I will change thrust into, to, thrust into a revival and then wikify it to the 1920 production of Emperor Jones and that's that 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I think I got it

Last word
The last words should go to Robeson. I'm not in the legacy section so I can't go off track and start bring in different opinions of his legacy by historians. This then makes the article exactly like the Bert Bell article. Err, I removed the block quote in this article I just put in, someone said I wasn't allowed to do that in the Bell article. This structure might be considered too sophmoric, well, if it is, then I kill 2 birds w one stone because no one reads the Bell article.

This means I will be wiping out the blockquote in the Spanish Civil War area. I do not like block quotes because it's like you have to stop reading and then start reading again, unless the blockquote is the last thing in a section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The actual contents of this articles SCW blockquote is different from both the Duberman's and the Guardian's rendition. Duberman utilizes the type up rendition of it and not the actual speech. The guardian utilizes and typed up rendition of it and not the actual speech. The guardian utilizes a version that was edited by their editors. Similarly, there's a debate of where the Pittsburgh Steelers got the moniker of Same Old Steelers. I had 3 sources on in, one deadly one from Robert Lyons, but I just dumped it out to a Steelers article because it was off-topic and too-detailed and ran it up against there 1 measly source from a direct account by a newspaper and said, you guys figure it out. However "The artist must take sides..." part is extremely concrete. I have not seen Robeson 2010 yet...but whatever I dont like the block quote in SCW section and would much rather wipe it out and write "stirring speech", "impassionate plea", or something of that nature and wipe out 300bytes. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to give him the last word and hopefully let the readers figure out what his exact legacy should be
 * its npov, the historians should go before that, either attacking him or defending him
 * its certainly my viewpoint that he was a tough s.o.b. fearless individual and he decided to make a stand, one way or another 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Body and Soul
Deleted: "wherein Robeson played a conniving preacher and his twin brother."
 * 1) any impact on society - no
 * 2) any impact on him - no (In contrast after portraying Brutus he was in a full blown sweat)
 * 3) important to the story line or to kind of hold the article together - no
 * 4) did he say anything about it - no

Also, censors modified the film I deleted. See above. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * fyi, the pittsburgh courier was reporting earlier than this movie that Essie was acting as his manager in an article that was treating the pair like gold - and that's why it's a bad idea to use papers directly in that era and I rely on professional authors. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sex stuff
It needs to satisfy:
 * 1) any impact on society
 * 2) any impact on him or his relationship w Essie
 * 3) important to the story line or to kind of hold the article together

Like in All the President's Men, I dont care whom he shared a bed with, I just care what he said while he was in bed with them. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Compilations of essays of the same viewpoint
I want the Dorinson stuff and Stewart stuff all put in one listing in the secondary materials section. They are all pro Robeson and it could be construed as not npov by adding lots of sources when they are essentially the same source/viewpoint. The same with the Great Forerunner and Freedomways...etc. If any of those books had a truly conservative viewpoint in them, then fine, we keep different chapters in the book. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy is soon to be toast: Foner, Henry (2001). Paul Robeson: A Century of Greatness. Paul Robeson Foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Curthoys I dont like either, umm, believe it or not because it takes up 2 lines in the secondary materials section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing books

 * 1) Negro Spirituals ...this is a major problem because there is really nothing pertinent (there's a book published by Du Bois but it was in 1903, yipes)
 * 2) NAACP history ...but not an autobiography like Farmer or Wilkins, yuck, need a historian
 * 3) Pan-Africanism (the state department wanted to silence Robeson over the United State's lack of preserving the fundamental rights of African Americans to life and liberty, but exactly why were they so concerned? Was it to preserve colonialism or to just counter Soviet propaganada and win the hearts and minds of the non-aligned countries. Kind of complicated here, for me at least. Need books here. )
 * 4) I'm not buying some of the authors that Robeson was completely unconcerned over the plight of African American in his early life. How in the world can anyone explain some of his early college speeches. I understand the whole being an apologist thingie, but maybe he was blown away by events in his early 20s.
 * 5) but ...1936, and 1956 are particularly deadly...66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On 4. It's not that he was unconcerned. I'm sure he wasn't ... anyway it isn't up to us to judge. It seems to me that his career has more parallels to Josephine Baker's than is apparent at first sight. In the Harlem Renaissance, African Americans were showing that they could be serious, responsible, respectable people - writers, teachers. At the same time, jazz music is making a massive hit all over the world. Two people make breakthroughs to being the first African American music superstars ever. Did they do that "on white terms"? Yes, to a certain extent, they had to at the beginning. Both PR and JB took roles that played to stereotypes of the exotic, erotic African. That's just my own analysis. We need to tell it from the sources, which report disapproving reviews in the black press. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Eulogy dispute
I move claims that Hoggard said something at Robeson's funeral to legacy. The eulogy is printed on line at the pr foundation site, its in Dent's book pp. 12-18, which matches verbatim with the online one (the online one has mistakes with spacing between paragraphs) and its also printed in bell's book. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Radio
I got him on WGBS according to the Chicago Defender singing the spiritual on April 11, 1925. Also, the defender is saying he was on the radio singing at least once while he was playing Brutus. I got rushed out of the library. So I'll have 2 revisit it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, these were nationwide broadcasts. I of course no nothing about early radio, so now we need a book on the history of radio. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

College Football: An All American Review
This now becomes a must get book especially when one considers that the author was Christy Walsh who was the agent for Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth and was a syndicated columnist and was part owner of the Los Angeles Dons that played in the All American Football Conference and competed against Bert Bell and the National Football League. And also we now have a historical figure to point the finger at over the whole who should be in the Hall of Fame in whatever sport. Also, it's mind blowing to me that O'Neill uses the term Hall of Fame in his play Jones. Where did that idea come from, is it him?

This book must be obtained so I bumped it up into a secondary material. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Very little newsrool exists
Guys, you are going about this wrong way. If you want to substantiate that, or prove, the government wanted to blacklist him or make him a nonperson, this is not the way to do it.
 * 1) "[V]ery little newsreel footage of Robeson now exists," as compared to who, what does "very little" mean
 * 2) "even in the Library of Congress," umm, the Libray of Congress is trying to launch an effort to recapture things that were lost during the great depression, I don't understand this at all
 * 3) "as the majority of US newsreel footage has been either destroyed or has had the sound erased." by Who, and how does this compare to other stuff that was lost or erased.

I'm on board with an instance of Robeson being ostracized from the College Football Hall of Fame, but I am not seeing this stuff. Also, this is very, very old dated material, and furthermore, 1971 was still, arguably a tumultous time.

I don't have a problem with any of this stuff but "very little" is pov, and "even in the library of congress" presumes the loc is infallible which it surely is not.

Whomever added that needs to rephrase it. I'm sticking w the spirituals for now. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase, was Hoover an unamerican, yeah, was truman misguided, yeah, was maccarthy - enuf said, ...ill wait a lil while, if the stuff is not remove then i will have to do forensics to see who added "very little newsreel" and "even in the Library of Congress" and "footbage has been either destroyed". I am not claiming that the stuff is not factual, I am saying it does not belong in Wikipedia in that fashion and needs to be rephrased. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going in that area because I at least want to work up to 1936 safely and hopefully 1945. I hope someone revisits my suggestions. Maybe I can get to 1949 safely too and we have close to an article if I skip to to 1959. I kinda feel like Farmer, what was it 297-298, let's get the story told - and me, lets put the facts out there as we know it and let the readers decide. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right when you say that it isn't the right way to explain that he was blacklisted. You don't need to see who added it. We can either just take it out, or we follow the way that the main biographies deal with it.
 * By the way, you are doing a lot on your own, and it is careful and good. Do you want other people to come and help you out? Or would you like to get to a certain point and then get others to comment? I don't always understand what your talk posts mean. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once I write a section and move onto another section. I pray you rewrite what I wrote. Especially when I write his performance was really good or really, really good, or triply good. Generally speaking I hope everything I write gets copy edited, every word. (I have a minor fix to remove the new idealism from rutgers), but I am done with everything before columbia. Right now I am focusing on the HR and when he first appeared on the radio which is during HR. Also, the NYT article about him getting a seat at a law school dinner needs to be revisited because he was already a well known singer by then and there is no real explanation in this article about why he was so well known.
 * His career more parallel hayes' than baker's I would think. Hayes was a hero to Robeson. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * and if it is acceptable practice on Wikipedia, you need to explain his vocal range
 * the only thing is if you bring in tangential stuff, I'll start complaining. I no nothing of music/theatre, so if you bring in a name, i won't know him and i'll want him deleted 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * the absolute worst right now is: "That day, The Daily Targum" - it needs copy edit. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "unequivocal success" need to be, without using a quote from the articles i use as citations, copy edited with a summing up of his performance and written at a professional level 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "critical reviews of Jim were neutral to less favorable" ..same thing 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking
Someone removed my linking of Robeson to the 1st part of the Civil Rights Movement because they considered it overlinking. They should have put a dispute tag on it. Dispute tags are not a big deal. Dispute tags are helpful to me understanding certain things. The other editor did it a few weeks ago. And it did not hit me until now, that there is an underlying dispute there. That is not an overlinking problem, if you want to see overwikification or overlinking, please see the last 100 edits in the 1920 Akron Pros season - that's overlinking.
 * And probably more important, look at all those Youngstown Vindicator primary sources I have dug up on the Akron Pros. Robeson is not(!) listed in any game that I can find. (!) Yay for me. (!) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am all over the 1920 Akron Pros, there is no way in the world he played for them....of course I could be wrong, I think I have one game to go. BTW, lots of stuff I have left out about Robeson, he is all over 1919 fall season of football w Columbia and Rutgers and Lincoln. (!) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am dying to bring in the "Gimme Light" from his rutgers day...it's just so much fun to read and it totally hammers down anything that he was not a leader on the field...it's just an amazing football story there. But no, him not being a captain is still a no go, it's too many words to utilize 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * in blah, blah, he was the de facto leader of the team (gimme light citation here so readers can read the article)...thats how its going to go down...nothing about captain of the team....about 25 bytes, thats it 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * dispute tags are not a big deal, use them. I am not omniscient. Just go on the talk page and say this is disputed by so and so. I, or someone else, will eventually check it when we get chance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase, I did not Robeson from a hole in the wall only 3 months ago, just put a dispute tag in which signifies I may be ignorant, which in fact I am. No big deal. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Greek stuff
I wish I could delete Robeson's entry into the honor society at Rutgers, but in a possible apochryal tale, his key was what originally attracted Essie to Robeson.

I wish I could delete the fraternity thing, I am biased against fraternities, but those look to be the guys responsible for initiating the move to get Robey into the college football hall of fame. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This article mistakenly says the Robeson joined Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. when he in fact joined Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. Title: The Young Paul Robeson by Lloyd Brown (Westview Books) An easy reader on the life of an American legend. \ p.111 " Robeson joined Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity at Lincoln....." The Wiki page for "List of Alpha Phi Alpha Brothers" has his name listed under the Nu Chapter (which is at Lincoln) and the "List of Kappa Alpha Psi" brothers page does not mention him. 198.151.130.87 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)James Parks IV
 * Someone reverted my edit I think I did the same thing as u. I'll look into it. I think he was indoctrinated into a second fraternity. Someone might be making a boo boo and deleting the 1st fraternity he entered and keeping the 2nd.66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * people really like the fraternity stuff and are reverting each other. I am going to put both fraternities in. Whichever one I do not have a citatin for will get a citation needed. He might have been involved in more than one fraternity. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Spirituals
Lots of stuff I write could be, and in this case is, wrong. The fact that Robeson sang the spirituals on the radio in December 1924 negates much of what I wrote about Brown influencing him. No biggie, sometimes its just better to write something and be wrong than just stare at the page. I am kind of frustrated that I can not figure out what he sang on June 29, 1924 at the 15th annual meeting of the NAACP in which Hayes was awarded the Spingarn Award. And I kind of frustrated w professional authors with not explaining what impact Gilpin's winning the Spingarn Award and Hayes winning the Spingarn Award. With all due respect, this stuff Robeson said that he just happened in to a successful career is not believable. But, no professional author says anything and Essie is basically saying he just was lackdaisical, althought when he performed in Jones, the dude stayed up all night to read the reviews in the paper in the morning. I guess B&B and Doobie expect me to believe that's the first time he read the newspapers? Do I have a point, yes, the professional authors I have encountered are negligent in explaining why Robeson was so drawn to the arts If they want to say it was just money, or, "it seemed like 75$ a week seemed like good money", then how do you explain him being terrified over Jones and breaking out into a full sweat? These authors have not explained his drive to get involved in the arts at all, jeez, just take a shot. I am convinced it's gilpin's and hayes' success and robeson was socially aware of things but i can't say nuttin' 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes there just are gaps in the record, and sometimes the biographies get things wrong. We are just writing a short encyclopedia entry. We can go a bit deeper than the biographies, but not that deep. Perhaps no-one will ever know how come PR moved into an arts career. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am an admitted notorious whiner when I think professional authors are negligent. I shouldn't say anymore because it's not about the article. I've mentioned Gilpin and I will put Robeson at the 15th annual meeting of the NAACP, which is when Rolando Hayes won the Spingarn. I will not mention that Hayes won the Spingarn because it's off topic, the only thing I will say was he was on the radio for the first time and he headlined the first radio event in African American History. Hopefully, the reader will connect the dots. I think its common sense why he got in the arts. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am going to attack it this way:
 * 1) "He later credited Brown for guiding him" not chronologically placed correctly ...copy and past to legacy (just to get it out of the way)...kind of important do not want deleted
 * 2) C clef stuff...professional musical people will pick up on whatever notes he sang in...delete
 * 3) Carl Sandburg distinguished between Robeson's interpretation of spirituals ...seems not chronologically placed correctly...move to legacy (just to get it out of the way)...I of course never heard of Sandburg and he is vulnerable to deletion
 * 4) I think we got 9 sentences in that section, and 2 paragraphs, maybe 8 sentences
 * 5) Edison Hour too detailed, delete, look into how often he sang on the radio
 * 6) need better sentence on Porgy
 * 7) and DEFINITELY need more on Pauli's birth....whew...I think 2 to 2.5 sentence on Pauli's birth is warranted. Definitely at least 2. No more than 2.5 3

Thats my gameplan 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Chronological citations
If page numbers are bouncing around in books, I will catch it. Even though it may be true that nothing changed in 10 years and a sentiment is probably valid on p. 300 for 1940 you can not use a p.300 citation for an event that occurred in 1950 unless the professional author specifically ties it in. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The notes citations stuff in some author's books are hundreds of pages behind their content so the pages bounce around there too. I guess I probably made some mistakes with that too. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell me/us what to do
You are doing great work but I don't know how to respond because your talk page posts are elliptic.

Solution. Just say what you want other people to do. Say it simply. Say: I need some people to look at this section or that section. Say: are we using X or Y source properly?

Just give orders. It's a bit unorthodox but best at this stage. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you feel is right. As far as sources go, I will hammer them all down see next section about to pop up on talk page. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to think before I write on the talk page. And even click show preview. When I write in the body of the article, I can spend 2-3 hours on a sentence. I never spend more than 2-3 seconds before I write on the discussion page and I never click show preview. I'll try to be better. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

First ever Othello
To say "first ever" requires total mastery of the subject. From a recent discussion on Talk:1920 Akron Pros season, I changed my mind. I'm leaving it in. We go with what we got. It's up to the next editor to complain and provide verifiable proof that the statement is wrong. When they provide the proof, which in all likelihood they will (in a multitude of subjects), we fall on the sword, put it in the article and it makes the article better which is the goal. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bert Bell again, sorry
For months I have had to deal with statements that Bell played for the Union Club of Phoenixville. Please look at that article, please look at the history of the article and please look how I utterly destroyed that article after months of research: "hammer the article for blatant inaccuracies, unsubstantiated claim dead link and this article needs to stop linking to Bert Bell which is not supported by any source" ...I research everything. If a book goes into further reading, I read it. If an author puts a book or newspaper in their book as a source, I go read it. And now I know why this article is chock full of quotes, it's cause Duberman is just not that good of an analyst. Clearly the Truman administration had a divide and conquer mentality. I think I have left out of further reading a book which explains Eastland utilizing a divide and conquer mentality w respect to Civil Rights and pro-Communist support. Some of the books I have put in or am utilizing are not young adult books, track them down, the reviews are all "upper undergraduate and above", "essential for any serious library". 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, this article suffers tremendously from not have a source that focuses on Truman's/Eisenhower's viewpoint of Robeson. I am trying to find one. Every viewpoint is from the inside to outside. We need an outside to inside viewpoint by a professional author. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a lot going on here: there's George Preston Marshall, McCarthyism, National Football League Players Association (NFLPA), Bert Bell and in a very intersting tweak which people many may not be aware of Bell's testimony before congress in 1957 where he, unlike Robeson, falls on the sword and recognizes the NFLPA. Robeson and Eslanda were absolutely confrontational. I am not going to judge write right and wrong. It's simply a compare and contrast. Both Robeson and Bell left college, in one fashion or another, in 1919. (Why Bell was born, in 1895, 3 years earlier than Robeson has extremely, extremely annoyed me. I have not been able to solve that puzzle) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Von Eschen's analysis looks to be correct. When the Korean War started, the united states government shut down their advocacy of civil rights in the united states. My opinion of Truman, whom I originally thought was a really good guy, is growing more unfavorable. That being said, there was a heck of lot going on between 1946 and 1950. Ahh, what do I know. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

SOAS picture
The usage of a picture of the front, or back, or one of the sides of the SOAS building needs to reevaluated in this article. Some people are very fond of the SOAS, so I can not remove it. But for those of you that are fond of the SOAS, I ask you: does a picture of that 7 story building really belong in this article? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think, because it is quite different from any other pictures in the article and does illustrate something of the variety of PR's interests and importance. I'm no good at pictures, but what I'm wondering is whether they all need to be so large. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yuck on SOAS, okay if you want it's cool. I don't know anything about pictures being too large or too small, generally speaking. Try making his first picture smaller see how u like it. My initial feeling on his first picture is his smile is inviting which tons and tons of authors go on and on about, we got a picture that's worth a 1,000 words there so you can try it but I my initial feeling is I will whine if after you do. The second picture of cap'n'skull i'd vote for making it smaller without blinking an eye, good catch by you on that one. I agree.66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am at this time very strongly against his first picture being made smaller. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you make the 2nd picture smaller, keep it large enought to support a 2 line sentence. I specifically moved stuff from the body of the article to under that picture because it was 1.1 lines of text so now its 1.5 lines of text. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree first picture can be big. I might try to make the others smaller. We could do with some comments from editors who are into pictures. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase, do whatever you think is appropriate with the pictures, I am sure it will turn out great. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How a picture of his last residence which is presently being restored and is trying to gain landmark status? 65.88.88.231 (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be very good. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Radio, Errata, Duberman, Spirituals, Jackie Robinson, Charitable Cause, Ben, The Lost Shepherd

 * 1) Radio broadcasts began (guessing here) in 1922
 * 2) I have Robeson on WIP (AM) on June 29, 1924 at the 15th annual conference of the NAACP (Peterson), and microfiche shows the NAACP submitting a report in that conference suggesting maybe they should use radio to get their message out
 * 3) Commerical radio (whatever that means) began in the fall of 1924
 * 4) parts of p. 80 of Duberman's book is at the very least specious if not factually incorrect. "The concert marked the first tim a black soloist..." It looks like I have Robeson giving a full length program to benefit a nursery on March 15, 1925 at the same playhouse (which is presently a link in further reading)
 * 5) mandatory inclusion of this concert is now required for this article because it shows him involved in charities at a very young age. This is a mistake by Duberman not to include this in his book, an inexcusable omission of fact for an 800 page book. Why did he get involved in charities? Hmmm, -> now Ben has to be looked at. Where was Ben in March of 1925 and what was he doing. We can date when he became a pastor. We have the eulogy out there noting his significant support of chartible events at Ben's church.
 * 6) Robeson met Brown "in the spring" in Harlem. The spring starts about March 21, which is after March 15.
 * 7) Since the April spiritual concert w Brown was a tremendous success, then it is a safe bet his March 15 solo performance was pretty good and he was probably on an emotional high when he met Brown
 * 8) I have Robeson on the radio, it looks to be April 9, 1925 singing the spirituals. Telelphone lines were setup prior to that (no date yet) between some cities in the United States to nationally broadcast radio programs. When did phone lines run across the Atlantic to broadcast radio programs, I do not know. Now that has to be looked at.
 * 9) Jackie Robinson and Duberman p. 360-361. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Duberman writes "[Robinson] stated in his 1972 autobiography that he had no regrets about the remarks he'd made before HUAC. But in fact he did." My initial opinion is that it's just extremely sloopy. Duberman using an 8 line quote from Robinson's book is sloppy. It's not a proper analysis. I think I found an online academic journal article that discusses it better. What Duberman left out from Robinson's book is Robinson would not have accepted the invitation to testify before HUAC if he knew then what he knew at the time of writing his autobiography. This combined with Von Eschen and you can really perform a proper analysis.
 * 10) The blockquote in the Lost Shepherd section is accurate although it is difficult to understand. Whether J. Edgar Hoover arranged for the article to be printed and distributed in Africa I would have to track that down from the FBI files cause I can not find any content from Henry Foner which is verifiable. If you look at the Robeson affair and how Von Eschen explained what was going on, then it is extremely easy to understand what was going on. That whole section needs rewrite. The fundamental assertions in that section are, however, correct. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Robeson sang the spirituals on the radio months before Brown showed up in the spring of 1925, its in the "Theatrical Comment" link
 * 12) Makes sense to me that maybe Brown did try to convince Robeson to sing the spirituals at Provincetown, already after Robeson had sung the spirituals at Provincetown, and as Robeson was wont, he just let Brown go on and on. 65.88.88.174 (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pro robeson forces claiming he was maligned by being apostate
"He was a Christian, he believed in God, which is why he is one who could sing the great hymns of the church, they come out of his soul." Robeson was not apostate, I've had enough of people trying to protect his legacy from ridiculous claims he was apostate. I have the eulogy in 3 spots. I don't have Bourne. If Paul Robeson Jr. is claiming that Duberman says Paul was apostate, all i can say is Duberman liked to concentrate on who slept with who. I got a historical figure, I got Stalin killing millions of people, I got McCarthyism and I gotta read who slept with who. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only Paul ever knew what he believed. The question here is how much of the argument about Paul's religion is notable. We know he was connected to Black churches. We know he sang spirituals. The rest is speculation and either we say "X said he wasn't religious but Y said he was a Christian", or we leave the speculation out. I think leave out unless we have good sources for each side. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, putting "it" back in, but I will edit it later an put it back in where it belongs chronologically. I will put it back in during his concert tour in the U.S. circa 1928 when he is reflecting on his career. Robeson, Duberman, Boyle and Bunie, et. al. are all talking about his meteoric rise to fame and they all describe a different point when that earliest occurred. I am putting it after E.J. because of the the 15th annual conference of the NAACP program broadcast on wip 610 am radio. Every member of the african american community in the united states, that was in the middle class, will then, at the very latest, have known his name, and that's the first step. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops never mind, it's already in there. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The point being, during that concert tour, that's when it's safe to say that Robeson indisputably recognized he had achieved great fame. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Truman and Eisenhower
I want to establish a direct link between Robeson and Truman and Robeson and Eisenhower. I have what I want from Goldstein for Eisenhower and Robeson. It will be Eisenhower's indirect opinion of Robeson - it will be extremely caustic, but it must go in the article. Truman, otoh, is clearly shown to be a knucklehead for letting AGLOSO get out of control and letting Hoover run roughshod on him. But that's offtopic and needs to go in the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations, at the least. I dumped a request on the talk page for Truman about AGLOSO - for them to link to AGLOSO on wikipedia. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Eisenhower will be brought in with a baby quote, which I hate reading in books like Duberman and Goldstein, but it's the potus - and for eisenhower in this case, it's personal so I will utilize it (Goldstein, pp. 194-195) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Berlin Airlift and Truman viewed as soft on communism...I think need to be brought in to provide context. I figure a total of 100 bytes between the 2. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Carl Sandburg
I removed the small quote from a three time pulitize prize winning poet, Sandburg, comparing Hayes and Robeson's interpretation of the spirtituals because context was lacking. So saying it "was the real thing" (especially to someone like me who was completely ignorant of the spirituals) does not inform the reader that it was, generally speaking, a contemporary revelation to a white audience. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mary Blair, Emma Goldman, Gertrude Stein, and Hall of Famers
I am going to delete all names unless the person is a hall of famer of whatever they did, unless it makes the prose better to read; the article is too long. The Mary Blair in this article was the wrong Mary Blair, she was only 13 at the time. Carl Sandburg looks to be safe, but Dubose Heyward is subject to deletion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also not going to include any other wikipedia hall of famers unless they point to Robeson. So Emma Goldman is definitely a nogo because she is a featured article and she does not mention Robeson. Gertude Stein has some action but is not a featured article, but she does not mention Robeson, so I feel no need to mention her. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect dates listed Boyle and Bunie p. 449
I have those radio dates listed in note 21 as incorrect. I have the links in further reading and dated at almost the same exact dates listed in 1925. I double checked it and of course proquest could be wrong. Proquest does not show you a page layout of the paper like google news does. I'm still looking to get a radio history book better than Sampson. A prima facia examination of Sampson's book would lead one to believe that Robeson was the first African American to every headline a musical radio program in the history of the united states, so that warrants further examination. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, trying to catch up with what's at issue here. What date do we have for Robeson's first radio broadcast? Do we have a history of radio in the USA to compare that with? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * June 29, 1924 I have as his first broadcast. B&B have it April 1924 which does not seem accurate. Radio started in 1922. Commericialized radio came into being in the fall of 1924. I have Lincoln Center library 10 minutes away from me. That library is one....I am wondering how good it is, but one of the foremost libraries in the world on the arts, radio, and for you Bert Bell fans, tv included. Like one tv sports historian said of the nfl broadcasts in the 1950s, even God does not know what games were broadcast on TV. So 1924 for radio aint going to be easy. Really, I want to know: 1) Which African American was on first, 2)When Robeson was on, and 3)What he did or what he sang when he was on (I want to know when he first sang the spirituals on the radio)...........Sampson basically lists him on pg. 8(?) as the first African American on a musical radio program. But that could have been an editing decision. Sampson basically starts African Americans on the radio in 1925. But he gives Robeson a special spot on WIP (AM) on June 29, 1924 at the 15th annual conference of the NAACP at the Metropolitan Opera House. Duberman has it listed in his notes. But for some reason...he chooses the Boston Concert he has as more important. I have not investigated that concert yet.66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * B&B have the June 29, 1924 concert listed in their notes and use the Milwaukee Sentinel as their source. The Milwaukee Sentinel for June 29, 1924 is not digitally archived yet - very sad - I looked. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think then we have to accept that there is a gap in knowledge and cope with it by including less information. Our article on WIP (AM) says it started in 1922, and that makes sense because of our history of radio article giving many start dates in the USA from 1921 and 1922. It seems that radio broadcasting and listening spread like lightning, as fast as Facebook in the last few years. Robeson at the NAACP conference is notable. First African American on the radio - no-one has gone through all the radio archives to be 100% on it, just say that his NAACP appearance was broadcast. Or just maybe attribute it to Duberman: "According to his biographer Duberman, this was the first radio broadcast appearance of an African American". I'm left wondering if the broadcast didn't include any words of other African Americans in the same NAACP event - people introducing Robeson, thanking him, etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay... I must have misspoke, there is no author I have seen that says he was the first broadcast. The whole conference was broadcast on the radio. The conference started Wednesday, or so. He performed Sunday night. Sampson listed his program 1st in his book....which is a long, long way from first ever. The first broadcast of an NFL game was at Ebbets field, but per your suggestion I'll put it on the back burner - which is different than "gap in knowledge". I don't care anything about performing at the NAACP, generally speaking, its just he was being supported by the upper echelon of the NAACP prior to that and after Emperor Jones, the same folks picked him to perform(I don't know for sure that they picked him). It has more to do with when did he go up the first rung to fame - which is debatable. I chose June 29. If someone wants to choose another date, then delete the whole performing at the 15th annual, unless he sang the spirituals there....And btw, I would have expected Essie to have grabbed all this stuff in her diary....so that should cast heavy doubt.


 * As far as history of radio is concerned, I am sorry, but I have to find out if Robeson was broadcast nationwide. That's important. It's sitting right in the Bell article, and other articles, about the first nationwide tv broadcast of the nfl championship game. We need that.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, go searching for detail about the broadcast. Best of luck. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already have closed out the first ever, he was not. The broadcast nationwide is important because the article, when I found it - and still is, focuses on his rise to fame, so that means I am just annotating his steps to his apex, whenever that may be. I get the feeling that noone is editing because this was a contentious article and all the people that were involved with it, while it was contentious, have been told to back off. I don't know how wikipedia works, but I am certainly not going to revert anyone's edits. I am sorry, but I need to, at least hint, when he could have been a household name. I am sorry, but I already have found authors missing a step with the Brown had to convince Robeson to sing the spirituals. I do not believe they are factually correct. As far as contemporary sources go, the Boston Globe in the latest edits I put in, OTOH, looks to be not factually correct with him only receiving a 1 year scholarship - it's listed as a contra. BTW, this is a featured article Jackie Robinson's take on Robeson: "concerning statements made that April by black athlete and actor Paul Robeson" ...that's embarassing calling Robeson an athlete in 1949 when Robeson was 51 years old. I don't wanna let that stuff happen here. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Search on the web: college tuition costs in 1920 ...that's good enough for me. Boyle and Bunie have it as $6xx dollar scholarship. Standford and U of Penn have a tuition of about $150. So as far as I am concerned, that's closed out and I don't need to spend any more time on it. In this case, Duberman suffices. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Personality and Charisma (1925-1930)
Robeson is vastly more complicated than Bell. And I am still hung up badly with Bell on his personality. On 2 occasions, one in front of DuBois, Pauli clearly lists Robeson sitting in front of DuBois to listen to him speak and to absorb his wisdom, and another time between 1925 and 1931 doing the same thing at a London party to make himself more approachable (maybe because of his fame or his physical size he felt awkward?). All accounts of Robeson on a personal level, between 1925 and 1930, list him as genuine, a great small talker, a great listener, and the whole thing with Brown (which I go against Duberman, Boyle and Bunite, possibly et. al. ) shows he was not the least bit condescending - which fits in with my belief that he was a tough s.o.b. There's not much action between 1926-1930. I think I have to slip in his personality during this timeframe...I'll throw in Show Boat to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Broadway Othello again

 * 1) This is a legacy thingie: "As of 2011, his run of Othello is the longest of any Shakespeare play on Broadway, running for 296 performances."
 * 2) This is not chronologically placed correctly and is 50% a legacy thingie: "It was later released on LP and years later on CD."
 * 3) This is too detailed: "the audience gave the cast a twenty-minute standing ovation, for ten curtain calls."
 * 4) This is not chronologically  placed correctly: "and continued to perform solo excerpts from the play at his concert performances for the remainder of his career."
 * 5) This whole sentence needs massive rewrite: "For his portrayal, Robeson received a Donaldson Award (forerunner of the Tony Award),[148] as well as the Gold Medal for the best diction in the American theater, which had only been awarded nine times since its inception in 1924." (Ok, i'm partly to blame but I never heard of the Donaldson Award)...lots of problems with that sentence (the whole diction thing probably needs to be handled once and once only, earlier in the article, I guess I am to blame for that) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Curtain calls, I humbly suggest, lack context. Nowadays, curtain calls and standing o's are obligatory because it's an affirmation of the ticket owner's wise decision to pay the price for their tickets. Why I can be debated about this, it's really a no-go. If you really think that Broadway Othello was all that, then you need a focused critque of the play; saying it got a bunch of standing o's as proof that it was a great play, don't cut it. Saying it got 296 performances during a wartime era meant that it was a great play, that don't cut it either.

For the Broadway Othello fans, the floor is yours. Write why that play was so good. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I accessed some books. The section needs rewrite. Quantitative things like # of curtain calls need to be deprecated. Qualitative aspects need to be brought in.


 * 1) othello is apparently an extremely difficult part to play (how I am supposed to know this?)
 * 2) no actor could be taken as a world class actor unless he has portrayed a significant role in a Shakespeare play (how I am supposed to know this?)
 * 3) the play made tons of cash
 * 4) the play did not break the color line or smash the color line on broadway; it utterly obliterated the color line on broadway
 * 5) robeson executed a power play on the director
 * 6) (I don't remember any author analyzing why audiences were fomenting at the mouth to see Robeson on broadway after receiving accolades doing the part, in arguably one of the intellectual capitals of the U.S., just outside Harvard...so, I can't say why one of the theatrical capitals of the U.S. was dying to see Othello after one of the intellectual capitals of the U.S. applauded it so much; it's a mystery to me.)
 * 7) the revival played throughout the united states to significantly attended audiences in cities that still had segregated audiences (another bad job by authors here w respect to a little historical comparison) and in some instances played in desgregated theatres - including a special one in detroit which touched Robeson's heart (which I find interesting and enlightening)

Now, how good was his portrayal...well, it was pretty good and it got better as he did it more and more. I think it deserves a full blown sub-sub-section. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now read the reviews of the play and most every interpretation of it accept his son's, Variety magazine and what Duberman terms as the weeklies. The dailies, as Duberman properly describes, reviews are almost hagiographical. The reviews are listed verbatim in New York Theatre Critics' Review. They are from the New York Post, the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the New York Journal American, the New York Newspaper PM, the New York Sun, the New York World Telegram, and the New York Daily News. One critic says it was the greatest play of all time, 2 critics say its the greatest portrayal of Othello of all time. Only 1 critic follows my prejudice that the war impacted Broadway. It's difficult to demean the play when critic after critic praises it and the audience supports it. It looks to be an earth shattering performance and it looks like Duberman downplayed it. I will re-read Swindall again. I need to read Pauli's view on it since he was one of the few people still alive that may have seen it. I hope he was there. I'll check Life, Time, the Nation, and the Saturday Evening Post to see what they got. Right now, I would describe it as a "triumphant, unparalleled, breakthrough performance" based upon the critics. Duberman says the weeklies through water on that, so I'll check it out. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Very few people, relatively speaking, have access to that 1944 book, New York Theatre Critics' Review. I sure would like to knock Othello down a couple of pegs. It's such an old book that the New York Public Library does not really list it properly. It basically has to be found, not by using their electronic card catalogue, but by walking around their reference section at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts, Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center/locations/lpa 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

2 touchdowns for Robeson
the nfl and profootball reference website have not responded to my emails. His 2 touchdowns in that 1 game might not be considered 2 touchdowns officially. I don't know why, maybe because one was a fumble recovery? It's pretty minor really, the more important thing is I got the links. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone remember: which book has him singing at a funeral circa 1920
Does anyone remember which book its in when Robeson goes down to sing at a funeral in D.C. circa 1920? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weisenfeld's books is a bugaboo. Simon the Cyrenian was, imho, a charitable event that Robeson performed in, which predates the charitable Katy Ferguson's event. The YWCA was 60k (1920 money) in the hole. Now we have Robeson headlining a concert at the opening celebration of the YWCA in Harlem, which was attended by "prominent black harlem americans" and Teddy Roosevelt's sister (in a building largely funded by John D. Rockefeller Jr.), bad job by Weisenfeld on "prominent black harlem americans". She crushes me when she lists Robeson performing in the concert and does not mention the Simon play. Goodness, I could not have been more wrong: this article is not more difficult with Essie being so strong a person, it's much easier. And Essie was not at the time that committed to Paul in 1920 and 1921 so this article suffers tremendously...best decision is to skip and move on and admit it has inaccuracies in it. Look at the screwiness, he headlined that event in February, supposedly before he moved to Harlem. We know he was singing all the time (which I find mind blowing). Maybe he became famous from singing after St. Christopher's Club basketball team games? I got the XO's name of the Harlem YWCA and Anna Heg?'s biography. Anna's autobiography is useless, she is post 1927. Weisenfeld's book bounces around chronologically - sometimes taking 10 year quantum leaps. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal, we got Columbia Law School (unknown date) giving him an honorary seat (I have to revisit the Gilpin controversy again) and we got Robeson opening up the YWCA in February 1920. IMHO, that's it, the YWCA gig was his first step in his rise to fame!...I won't state that, but I got a citation to describe it :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I got this dude in, imho, charitable events when he was 22-24 27 years old. And it's sitting out there in his eulogy. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC) I got it covered, already as a citation. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Schomburg Center
I might be breaking a rule with the Schomburg Center. I've tracked it down and have utterly, constructively, destroyed the Wikipedia article on Schomburg, but the library was around the corner from the present Schomburg Center. I am totally biased and I think the Schomburg Center far exceeds hall of fame status and this dude Howard Dodson is not a hall of famer and not legendary, he might be immortal. I really want the Schomburg Center in this article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * look at my additions to the Dodson article, this dude has got to be borderline immortal 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and whether you like robeson or not, he is clearly an immortal figure 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and the Schomburg Center is clearly immortal, no ifs, ands, or buts. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Birth of son
Birth of Pauli can not be moved out of chronological order because of the following reason - it may require an entire paragraph. Eslanda was in distress for months and she kept it to herself - which will be another indication, in a non-off topic way, the strength of the woman which will later be seen in the 1940s. Furthermore, the fact that after Robeson found out about her being in distress and took the next boat back to see her is clearly in need of an entire sentence. I am not going to move the birth now because I have a cold and I am still staring at the Ferguson charity event...I don't know what to do with that. Arguably, there are some things that should stay between a husband and wife and others things maybe not so - in this case, Pauli's birth and it's aftermath are, imho, relevant to the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please keep everything chronological. We may not need to trace every single one of his trips away from the USA and around the world, but we do need to be clear about when he was mainly living in the US, when in UK etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Porgy and radio
No go, not long enough commitment or big enough impact: He next played Crown in the stage version of DuBose Heyward's novel Porgy. Robeson was broadcast in performance on New York radio, usually performing Negro spirituals; on June 7, 1927 he was a featured performer on the Edison Hour. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Show Boat
That kind of looks good to go there. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the show boat section was written exquisitely, I just inverted some sentences and removed Labour MPs as being responsible for inviting him to the HoC. It's too early in the ballgame to bring in politics, and besides I have a hard enough time dealing w politics in the U.S. and it's going to get extremely difficult in this article politically very fast. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Eyeballing up to Showboat
It does not look too large. The last paragraph of HR probably needs to be expanded by 2 sentences. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have this up to showboat, about 10 sentences shorter than the Jackie Robinson article, although this article is probably missing 4 sentences in that time frame, at least. OTOH, all the things that happened around Paul in his early years were extremely noteworthy events and difficult to handle. So, I am cool with that. It's easy to add stuff and put in more descriptive sentences. I would like to get past Othello before Morrison comes out with his book. That would be cool. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Controversies in the article
every single solitary author, Essie, and Paule, each has a different viewpoint on when his ascension to fame really started to occur or occurred or when it took a quantum leap. that's impossible to pinpoint. Me personally, I would like to let the Robeson god watches over me thingie to slide and place it in a chronologically accurate place. Then let the reader decide if it was a sincere statement, a product of his upbringing, him genuflecting on his success, or an editor's (that would be me) bias trying to claim Robeson was ultra-religious or and editor trying to be defensive about claims he was apostate. How do I know what he meant by it, that's what the dude said, then that's what the dude said. I'd put my $ on him genuflecting in a sincere fashion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chronological always works. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

HR and 1926 and 1927
I think the most important thing is Pauli's birth but I have covered it in a first rough draft. I am sure there is stuff missing in there w respect to the HR, but I prefer to press on. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Black v White Press
I'd like to bring the Time footnote quote into the body of the article and then henceforth just use representative online citations to support the difference in perspective rather than repeat over and over again the different viewpoints.66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Jim Crow Laws
Places he can't go, eat, drink, sleep: it's already in his college days, maybe somehow use the Savoy thingie in London to mention Jim Crow laws, after 15 years, were still the same in the U.S. and existed somewhere in England and say something like things would change for many years to come in the United States. Not every reader is knowledgeable what some parts of the United States were like in the 1920s and 1930s. I think it requires a slightly off topic sentence. I know in researching this article and looking at the Library of Congress digital newspapers from 1900-1910 I was blown away by some of the lynching stuff that was on page 1 of the New York newspapers. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is 12 words on a generalization of the setting then. Specific things like segregated seating at audiences are still permitted - but not over and over again. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OTOH, keep the article a skeleton now and arrange chronologically is probably best now...plug in the other stuff later...yes..wise 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Section names
Show boat...original editor did great job, very happy with it, Harlem renaissance: Wintz has Robeson 1 of the 3 most important figures in the HR - you don't wanna mess w Wintz, Rutgers, Columbia, and Early days...Early life...pretty basic stuff there, theatrical ascension blah blah and all the other stuff open to interpretation 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Show boat is somewhat sloppy, just using one author for citations is not wise especially when there are 4k articles on Robeson out there. Sloppy can be great though 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Horne, Gerald
This guy looks to be a serious dude. By all accounts, in a few books, he is claiming that Robeson was, at the very least, somewhat helpful in ending colonialism in Africa. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means look up his books for mentions of Robeson. The key thing will be to look for factual information rather than an opinion. We don't want to tell the readers that PR was important in this or that way; we want to show them how he was important. In Google Books I can see a reference to PR being friendly with Nehru, now that is really relevant and definitely worth mentioning. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree completely-keep the article barebones, um, Horne is a powerhouse. I honestly don't know who Nehru is yet. As far as friendships go, who would be one of Robeson's most cherished lifelong friends, that would be Ben Davis...and who wrote a biography on Davis...hrmm... 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Authors pre 2001
I think when things get heated up in this article. Authors for analysis pre-2001 need to be thrown under the bus. I'll take Wintz, Horne, Nollen, Robeson Jr., Swindall, Woods, Nesbitt, Goldstein, Balaji and Dorinson, i'll exempt Von Eschen - 11 (lol), (okay Dyer on the bench for the artistic folks)...other authors too old ...it's not that their bad...they're just too old. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * there is the librarian from the library of congress that wrote a book, circa 1990 i think, that said mccarthyism was a good thing. i really don't know any authors with bona fide conservative credentials that attack robeson. but this article needs it to counteract robeson jr. and dorinson. the only real hope i have is buckley because he is the best. i don't want any mickey mouse authors, I want serious pulitzer prize winning dudes that wrote books and not some columnist in some rinky-dink newspaper. And really, at the very least it has to be post-1995, but not include info from the release of KGB papers circa 1992. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Robeson then sang in a chorus in an Off-broadway production of Shuffle Along
Reintegrated the theatre district is okay, but ignited the Harlem Renaissance-that should be, arguably, the first thing to be deleted, if spaced is needed. He played a minor role in a chorus and for only 6 weeks. But there is so little on Robeson in this time frame, someone needs to hit the fish on the New York Age.66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fraternity dispute
I think some people are changing names of fraternities. I am not a big fraternity guy but I just put a tag on it so it doesn't fall off the edge of the world. Near as I can tell he joined 2 fraternities and one may be lost. It's not a showstopper. Moving on. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For those who read this article, if he joined your fraternity, then I will be sure to include him as joining your fraternity. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * and you are more than free to edit the article to say he joined your fraternity, just place it in chronological order w a citation and u are good to go. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a dispute, everything looks good to go 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found one potential problem:Robeson 2001, p. 74, says he joined Sigma Tau Sigma, a chapter of Sigma Theta. But Sigma Theta is a chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha, see 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the fraternity has got to stay, not only because of the possibly apocryphal tale about how Essie met Paul, and not only because people really like them, but because by all accounts those are the guys that are responsible for getting Robeson into the College Football Hall of Fame. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps or arguably
I deleted my implementation of: "—which, arguably, reintegrated the Theatre District and helped ignite the Harlem Renaissance"

I deleted another editor's implementation of: ", perhaps the first actor to do so"

This article does not have room for conjecture. That's for professional authors that write 400 page books.

The author's and page numbers are intact. Readers can do further research and reach their own conclusion. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wintz, is very accommodating to Hughes, and writes that Hughes claimed that Shuffle Along helped ignite the Harlem Renaissance. For me, I'd hide behind Wintz and let him do all the blocking if, and only if, I was writing a 400 page book. But, it's just too many words to expend so it's a nogo. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for deleting other editor's stuff, you can put it back in and we can deal with it later. I am by no means can be considered the last word. I am wrong alot. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I put it back in. But it's conjecture and with all the stuff written about Robeson, it should not be in the article. If all these authors ignored if something occurred and decided the event was not worth their time to research, then in no way shape or form can it be considered notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 24 hours from now, I will go back in and delete the perhaps unless someone comes here and says why it belongs in the article 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Marcus Garvey and DuBois
The Wikipedia article on Garvey is in a state of development, which is understandable due to its complexity. The Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture article is being actively engaged by me. On the south west corner of the Schomburg is a plaque, if my memory does not fail me, as it usually does, the plaque says something like "Marcus Garvey Historic Speaking Site #9". IOW, Garvey looks to have been speaking on the northwest corner of 135th and malcolm x and there was simply no way for robeson to ignore him if he was going to Essie's home on Strivers Row or the 135th street library branch which was 150 feet to to the west of where garvey was probably standing on a 18" crate yapping away. So Garvey is going to have to be looked at cause I know about him either. Garvey is a nogo. Any impact he had would have been picked up by authors. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And Robeson personified everything DuBois wrote about the spirituals circa 1920. The only one that is believable, that I have found is, Robeson Jr., iow, Robeson was reading what DuBois wrote in local papers as Robeson Jr. explicitly states on p. 44. Quite honestly I do not understand why other authors could not have brought up the idea of Robeson, living in the print media capital of the world, could have maybe bought a newspaper or 2. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And I got nothing from Balaji, Professor and the Pupil on this. Bad job by authors, no foundation exists. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Couple of elements in PR's move to left-wing politics
The tea with Labour Party MPs at the House of Commons should be mentioned. Also, PR Junior says they were friendly with Emma Goldman in London in 1925. Goldman told them about her stay in the USSR 1919-21. The story about meeting the Welsh miners may have a core of truth but there is a mythical element to it as well. People don't usually get as political as PR did overnight. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * but why mention the Labour party, there's danger out there, just say MPs. I did not delete they went there for lunch: "Consequently, Robeson was invited to lunch by MPs from the House of Commons, perhaps the first actor to do so." I want the "perhaps the first actor to do so" deleted. Seton is a very, very, old author and if you want I will research it. But that will take hours and it's not really worthwhile.


 * I never said anything about him getting political overnight. I do not know anything about Robeson post Show Boat.
 * And I don't know anything about any Welsh miners. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you know what, anyway you want to go w Emma is fine. Really, I don't see Emma being that great of an influence on Robeson at this time. Be careful, I think you are treading on thin ice. Remember the source is Essie's diary and Emma was an extremely powerful woman as was Essie. I am taking a man's point of view. And this is an article about Robeson. As far as Essie had on Robeson in the 1940s, based on what Essie learned from Emma is a totally different ball of wax. I don't know. After 1945, Essie was clearly a powerhouse and all this open marriage stuff looks to be baloney to me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that Essie was an extremely powerful woman? Bert Bell went buckled before Congress and put his job on the line and unilaterally, against the wishes of the NFL owners, recognized the National Football League Players Association, Essie went before Congress and told them to go stuff it. I mean, c'mon. Essie is legendary. She is not an ordinary woman. But this is an article about Robeson. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are jumping the gun. Essie will come out in the 1940s. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And you got a real problem because we got nothing on DuBois or Garvey and you want me to jump into Emma. How can I deal w Emma before i deal w Garvey and what exactly Robeson gleaned from DuBois. I think you are jumping the gun. We got DuBois from Jr, but we need to find out who this Garvey dude is. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, write it up, I look forward to reading it, I am sure it's going to be great. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1 year or 4 year scholarship
I don't know if anyone picked up on it. But the Boston paper, which I put a link in for, says it was a 1 year scholarship. However, Boyle and Bunie get busy and find a contemporary New York Age reference that says it was about a $675 scholarship. Last week or so, I did some poking around and Stanford University has a website that list tuition by year and it was about $150 for 1915. They don't break it down whether or not that included room and board or if it was just for 1 semester or for both semesters (if they had 2 semesters back then I don't know). That was good enough for me. It's summarized as a 4 year scholarship. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

YMCA and YWCA and Simon the Cyrenian
Not important really where it was enacted. Authors are conflicting. Edit wars are naturally ensuing. So I deleted it. However, Weisenfeld's book is about the YWCA, in fact her book is entitled: African American Women and Christian Activism: New York's Black YWCA, 1905-1945. No question he performed there at the opening celebration, according to Weisenfeld. If anyone touches that, I will revert it without prejudice. It's understandable that someone would edit YWCA to YMCA for Simon, but not for the YWCA's opening celebration. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Showboat Money at Drury
It's the biggest money maker as of the publication of B&B's book, according to B&B, and not the biggest money maker to 1928. It earned, presently, $0 a week. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Official name of 103 west 135th street
The official name is the Schomburg Collection for Research in Black Culture building, according to the NYC Landmarks Preservation Committee.

It was historically the original site of the Countee Cullen Library, according to nypl.org.

But it is physically part of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture.

I have just summarized it to the Schomburg Center. Unbelievable. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm chillun for a few days
I kinda would like to see some other people edit this article. Maybe they will get on a roll. I am kinda happy w editing Schomburg Center cause its more at my intellectual level. But you only have a few days. Right now the tea and crumpets w the Labour folks is not stacking up with a Royal Command Performance which I believe Robeson was summoned to. And excuse my 3rd grade interpretation of events, but Robeson visiting Ben Davis in prison on more than 1 occasion speaks volumes of his character. I don't know this guy Nehru for nothing, but if this was some kind of big shot, where was he when Robeson was all alone in the 1950s? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying Robeson was a saint. But my limited knowledge indicates at this time, based upon Davis' work with Scottsboro, that Davis was a far more important individual than whoever this guy Nehru was - although I am prejudiced because of my ignorance of whatever Nehru accomplished in his life.66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a good chill. I'll look up the Royal Command Performance. The tea and crumpets at the House of Commons was a big deal and not incompatible. Jawaharlal Nehru was being prime minister of India in the 1950s. Good question as to why he did not come to PR's aid. Same for PR's other friends who were running African countries. There was a cold war on, and they didn't want to offend the USA for nothing, but that can't be the complete explanation. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this source, Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, who was herself later prime minister of India, organised a celebration for PR's 60th birthday. The US State Department pressurised India to cancel it but in the end decided to let it go ahead without making an official protest. Looking to see if there is more on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * check this badboy out: Horne 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at Horne's book today which I reference above. That's some extremely, extremely complicated stuff. Robeson seems to have disappeared from the middle of a football field, or from center stage on an acting or singing platform, to become a selfless, yet forceful, intellectual member of the Council of African Affairs. Which makes the article 10000x harder to deal with. You go from being a good blocker, to singing in a G note to ...whatever 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At least I graduated him from Law School :) Wikipedia is a collaboration :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea and Crumpets 1st time
Toast. There is no Wikipedia article Tea and Crumpets w Labour, there is for a royal command performance and that's corroborated. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely toast. It's more important that they befriended him. That, I have corroboration on. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Robeson was in the Communist Party?
According to Wintz p. 381 "As the Harlem Renaissance was coming to an end, Robeson, who had long before abandoned Harlem and the United States, gradually drifted into the Communist Party."

It's just not very precise writing in that sentenceo, and I think I caught Wintz being sloppy one other time (I forget where). And, that's why I like to read lots of different books. 65.88.88.231 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * generally speaking, "abandoned Harlem" is kind of the way I see it. OTOH, Miers, in 1950, talks about him being a Citizen of the World. But he did not abandon Pollard when he was in trouble financially during the Great Depression. OTOH, Harlem was absolutely crushed during the Great Depression. Have to make it to the completion of Othello on the English stage because I am so looking forward to reading the critique of the English Othello, even though it folded. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Point being is: I dont care if anyone writes Robeson was in the Communist Party in the body of the article. However, if someone puts a communist template in the article, then I have a major problem w it - due to my troubles w Bert Bell. I can see stuff in the body of the article, but templates kind of hide. I can always put a disputed tag in the body of the article when someone says he was a member of the communist party and deal w it later; but, communist templates are a major problem and any edits that create it have to be reverted forthwith. Templates mean it's a done deal and it's not a done deal w Robeson by a long shot.
 * If anyone writes Robeson was a member of the CPUSA in the body of the article, ignore it. Put a dispute tag on it and move on. Due to knucklehead interpretations by authors, it's understandable and not something to get emotional about. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Show Boat timeline
I made it up as I saw fit.
 * 1) Q & K showed up
 * 2) befriended by MPs
 * 3) Royal Command Performance

It's not possible to deduce an exact timeline. I just used common sense. The Q&K saw him and they thought he was good, the MPs met him and saw he was cool, the Prince summoned him for a RCP. The page numbers are too tight to discern an accurate timeline. So I made it up with what I think is common sense. It's accurate, but not may not be 100% precise. But that's the best I can do. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I will reevaluate it and see if it conforms to professional author's interpretations of it. Sometimes, I just like to go what I feel from what author's write and I don't copy and paste stuff; i don't know if that makes sense, but who, what, when, where is copy pasted - feeling is an edit by me without looking at books and just goin' w emotion and then double checking to see if my interpretation is correct - later - after I write what I believe I have read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC) deleted: over the top. but generally probably true and generally the way his work should be described. I'll never get a citation for it so deleted. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not serious work here and should be delete forthwith
"After taking them for their first meal in days, he decided to help their cause. He visited the Rhondda Valley and the Talygarn Miners' Rest Home, and performed for miners and their families in Cardiff, Neath and Aberdare.[107]"

It says: "Robeson’s association with South Wales dates from 1928 when, whilst performing in ‘Show Boat’ in London’s West End, he met a group of unemployed miners who had walked to London to draw attention to the hardship and suffering endured by thousands of unemployed miners and their families in South Wales."

That citation is garbage.

Does anyone see anything about "first meal in days" ? 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is nonsense. We need to stick to the facts. Fact: many South Wales miners were unemployed. Fact: they organised "hunger marches" to London. Fact: at some point Paul Robeson made contact with them. The hunger marches were well organised political events. The marchers were met by supporters at points along the way and offered food and shelter. It was not the case that they arrived in London not having eaten for days. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Salemme
Salemme has got to come into the article. I have been trying to figure out what to do with him for a while. But basically, Robeson spent too much time with him. Also, even Robeson Jr. calls out his father for being extremely disrespectful (an extremely nice way to put it) towards Salemme. Robeson spent too much time with Salemme to ignore him. The fact that the sculpture and their friendship "disappeared suddenly and mysteriously" will just have to be left up to reader to figure out why. Since even Robeson Jr. unequiovocally insults his father: "Although Tony was celebrating his one-hundredth birthday at the time of our interview...the hurt was still in his luminous eyes" p. 163. it has to be brought in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't bring it in the article that it was an insult to Salemme. Too detailed. There is no explanation given. Salemme was 100 years old. And since no one explicitly calls out Robeson, then I can not put a comment in about it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't bring Salemme in this article at all, because of Essie. Essie is more important than Salemme and the Harlem Renaissance section is prolly 1 section too long as it is. The only thing to really delete is the Met House in Philly. Maybe a total rewrite of HR would free up some space. It's definitely 1 sentence too long. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * freed up space, folded into a cf. and deleted: and brought the prominent singing role at an annual conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) held at the Metropolitan Opera House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Home in NYC is a National Landmark
Now, that becomes priority 1 to find out what it's address is and snap a picture. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The Paul Robeson Residence article on Wikipedia needs a name change. That being said, the Schomburg Center building names are just a total disaster. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See here: [NHL Writeup]. It's not called the building at 555, or the Joe Louis house. It's called the Paul Robeson Residence. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Some archictecture guru editor replied to my query about the name of that article, there is some kind of Wikipedia rule that says the article has to be named that way. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Plots of plays and reviews of his performance
They can not be included. It makes the article too long. .....66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with plots of plays. One or two very short mentions of reviews might be good. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * k, but I'm fond of whichever editor wrote that Time stuff about All Gods Chillun. Agree on reviews with the focus maintaining on how he sung, and how he acted, and not on "he brought the house" down laudatory stuff. If he did 450 performances at Othello, it's redundant to say he was great. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you of course always welcome to summarize and edit as you see fit. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * by the way, one of the first things the Schomburg center did when it reconstituted in circa 1925 is, guess what, they bought a bust of Ira Aldridge and put it on display in the center of the library and everyone stood around and took pictures with it. I'm extremely sad because no author mentions it in any kind of association with Robeson. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * no, my notes indicate it was 1936. That just shows what happens when you're prejudice about something, you read what you want to read. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Open marriage
I am feeling no love for them having an "open marriage". I think that is going to fall to the wayside. That will be extremely difficult to handle but if someone wanted to build a case that Essie was a strong woman because she was able to be sexually independent, I do not think the facts will bear out that is what her strength was (and I do not see any fact in it, and one-night stands, or rumors of one-night stands-which is more accurate, very simply do not count. Maybe this article just has to wait until after WWII to deal with Essie. But this is an article about Robeson, so he should be the focus. But...66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The Crisis, March 1918
This solves the puzzle. It starts from Marable, Manning (2005), W.E.B. Du Bois: Black Radical Democrat, Paradigm Publishers, ISBN 9781594510182 p. 171 and ends here: Du Bois writing about Robeson as early as March 1918 pp. 229-231 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The key point, which Marable quotes is baritone soloist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I attribute the article to being authored by Du Bois. That's not a guess, that's a direct response to Marable attributing the authorship of that article to Du Bois. Whether he authored it or not is not important. That article was a major coup by me. It is now almost impossible to refute that Robeson was well known in Harlem in 1918 and closes the door on "how did he get all these singing gigs", and how did he get acting gigs at the YWCA. Left out of the article is, of course, The Crisis was arguably the most important article African American national periodical in the country - although A. Philip Randolph says it was the Chicago Defender in his Response to Marcus Garvey (see The Messenger Reader ISBN 0-375-75539-X).66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Variety of sources
In the first 59 citations, I count 29 different sources. Um, that is utterly awesome. I am very proud of that. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

First sentence needs rewrite
I jacked a dispute tag on the pronunciation of his name. This article does not need a citation there. If everyone wants a citation there, then the source does not say: "Although it is now common to pronounce Robeson with three syllables...". I do not believe the pronunciation of his name requires a citation. Move to delete. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll stay away from the rest of the first sentence. But the citation needs to be toasted. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * toasted: 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation of his name would need a citation if he was some obscure figure in the 1700s. If someone jacks a citation need, then I'll just move the pronunciation of his name into Childhood and respond with the citation there. No citations in introduction. Keep it ambiguous. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Duberman's focus on Robeson
I was wrong, and so was Pauli. Duberman's account is not prurient. It's more of a Life and Times of Paul and Eslanda Robeson. I thought for months he was a Professor of Sociology and I was shocked to find out he was a Professor of History. His book is not so much a historical reference but a reference of what fame does to relationships and how two strong willed, independent, intelligent individuals react to it during very tumultuous times. It's really not a go to book from a historical perspective. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you go to the Bert Bell article, then you will see his wife only really has 3 sentences in it. It is the exact antithesis of Duberman's account. That being said, Duberman's account is preferable to Lyons' because Francis Upton had a lot to do w Bell's success and it's devastating that Lyons does not account for it. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Francis having a lot to do w Bell's success is personal opinion and original research. And that's why it's not in the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)