Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 19, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents


Recent changes concerning Robeson's breakdown[edit]

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

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

Response

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

REVERT ONE

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

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

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

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

REVERT TWO

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

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

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

REVERT THREE

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

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

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

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

Ami du peuple (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is basically a dispute over whether a son's biography of his father, and his unique claims of outside interference that led to his father's breakdown, are superior to well researched biographies by outsiders. While a son is entitled to his own view of his father, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that (at its best) tries to maintain neutrality by using secondary sources. I recommend that you read WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (and its supplement, WP:Identifying and using primary sources). In general, Paul Robeson Jr.'s biography is a hybrid of primary and secondary sources, but when he writes of events that he witnessed and that were not well reported—such as his father's breakdown—I think we have to treat it as a primary source. That doesn't mean we twist Duberman to make him agree (or at least not disagree) with the wildest of Robeson's conspiracy theories. It means we treat Duberman as the better account. If you disagree, I recommend we use WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask other editors their opinions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've stayed out of this because I know nothing about the incident, and cannot access the biographies. However, I agree with Mailik's analysis above of the WP policy position (whether a son's biography of his father, and his unique claims … … are superior to well researched biographies by outsiders). The only aternative to some kind of RSN or other dispute process, is the possibility of putting the more 'official' position first, and then putting Jr's claims briefly - where they disagree. That is dependent on you both agreeing that Jr's claims are of sufficient interest/value (WP:WEIGHT) for them to be included. Pincrete (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Article needs a Discography[edit]

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

I think it would be a very difficult task unless somebody has published such a discography, in which case reproducing it here might be copyright violation. Many of Robeson's records were recorded in the era before "record albums"—78 rpm was standard and listeners got one song on each side of a record. In recent decades, his recordings have been assembled in countless compilations, some of dubious quality, many of which overlap one another in song selection. I did add an "external link" to Robeson's bio and discography at AllMusic. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voice type[edit]

I believe I brought this up some time back but there was no satisfactory response. This article does not cite any sources for the claim that Robeson is a bass-baritone. He described himself as a bass, and sounds perfectly like a bass. In his hearing with HUAC he says "I am a bass singer, so for me it was Chaliapin, the great Russian bass, not Caruso the tenor."

A "bass-baritone" is supposed to possess qualities of both a bass and a baritone, His voice is completely lacking any baritonal quality. He is dark and thick sounding all the way up to his highest notes. e.g in his Carnegie performance of Old Man River his highest note is d4 (2 minutes in), and he still clearly has the timbre of a bass even at the top of his range. He doesn't sound like a baritone at all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7oAn4Pydpo

Is there some reliable source that categorizes classical singers that can be used for Robeson? Might his own words from the HUAC hearing be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XBiophagex (talk • contribs) 11:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice, now, that I'm taking up this topic after a four year gap. Recently Pincrete corrected me when I changed the description of Robeson's singing voice in the first sentence of the lead from "bass-baritone" to "bass". Pincrete was technically correct by Wikipedia standards because Robeson's voice is described as bass-baritone in the body of the article according to reliable sources (something I should have noticed in the first place). No doubt, one could also find reliable sources that describe him as a bass rather than as a bass-baritone. As a practical matter, though, one would be hard pressed to find any voice teacher circa 2023 that would describe his voice as ay kind of baritone. He was definitely a bass. Howard Keel was a bass-baritone, Paul Robeson was a bass. He was also, of course, a "concert singer", and that is what I suggest we now call him in the lead. Otherwise we're misleading the reader. We can worry about the voice description in the body of the article later. Goodtablemanners (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would personally also have thought of him as a bass, but Brittanica says "Robeson had a superb bass-baritone singing voice". An old discussion in the NY Times says he himself claimed to be baritone - though I can only read about 5 seconds of that ($$). Most other musical sources seem to say bass-baritone as well. Concert artist may well have been the contemporary term to describe him, but it perhaps sounds 'dated' now. Pincrete (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd prefer "concert singer" to "concert artist", both may be dated, but I don't think there's anything wrong with using the terms that were common at the time. Actually, his description as a bass-baritone may have something to do with the conventions of his day. Basses in opera tended to have unheroic roles so the description of Robeson as a bass-baritone might have been partly to soften this image. As I said, however, he was definitely a true bass. None of this is worth getting into a heated argument about. Cheers. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relationship with Albert Einstein[edit]

Is this a topic of general interest to be included? References in this article: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-celebrity-scientist-albert-einstein-used-fame-denounce-american-racism-180962356/

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories