![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this draft has been disambiguated. If this draft is accepted, a hatnote will need to be added to the primary page to refer to this page.
The primary page is Freedom (magazine).
I think that referring to the publication as "Robeson magazine" does not accurately describe it, on a couple of grounds.
In the scholarly articles that make up the references, Freedom is mentioned six times as a newspaper, once each as a monthly newspaper, journal, and paper. It is not mentioned as a magazine — except in this Wikipedia article revised title, to which the reviewer changed it. I observe that the Wikipedia article Freedom (newspaper), concerning "a London-based anarchist website and biannual journal... which was formerly a monthly newspaper" has no compunction about tying monthly and newspaper together, rather than describing it as a magazine.
I note that Wikipedia's Paul Robeson article describes Freedom as a periodical, and the Wikipedia article on its successor publication Freedomways describes that publication as a journal.
Also, I think that an exclusive association with Paul Robeson is too restrictive. He is listed last in the Editorial Board of the first issue, not listed at all with the Editorial Board in the second issue. The third issue does not have a staff listing at all, while Robeson listed as Editorial Board Chairman in all of the others that I've reviewed. He was not the editor; that was Louis E. Burnham. The publisher was Freedom Associates.
I understand the difficulty of creating an unambiguous name for the article. The Freedom (disambiguation) article lists two publications under Press:
So I suggest the following alternatives:
The above is slightly modified from an entry on the reviewer's Talk page. Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Further to this argument, WorldCat characterizes Freedom's genre/form as, among others, African American newspapers. [1] So it would appear that the best title for the article would be:
Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 01:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Addressed to Grant Handy and placed on his Talk page, where he removed it 6½ hours later.)
In your recent editing of the 1950–1955 periodical associated with Paul Robeson, Freedom, where you removed the following:
-- you wrote as your edit summary, "This 'characterization' has no source and seems just to be something an editor made up. The communism thing adds to my suspicion that this is just some random person taking a jab at these people." Contrary to your edit summary, there is a source, which you left in place in your edit. For your convenience, I footnote here the source of the quote that you struck: [1]
Apparently you did not bother to consult this source before making your edit, mischaracterizing what you struck as "just... something an editor made up," which it is not. I understand your indignation at what seems to appear to you as the tarring of a group of people with a label held to be demonic at the time, an indignation that I share for personal as well as philosophical reasons.
But many of these people were in fact members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and for good reason (see, for instance, Communist Party USA and African Americans). The paper's editor, Louis E. Burnham, had joined CPUSA in the 1930s and was an official after Freeedom closed. W. E. B. Du Bois attacked CPUSA in articles but later his wife, Shirley Graham Du Bois, joined CPUSA in the late 1940's; Du Bois himself joined CPUSA in 1960. Lorraine Hansberry joined CPUSA as a college student. Lloyd L. Brown was affiliated with CPUSA from the 1920's. Vicki Garvin joined CPUSA in 1947.
Finally, I note that in your haste to excise what you found offensive and mistakenly considered unsourced, you quoted a portion of the original material that you halved. Thus, what is left is the following:
So when you struck "Freedom paper was basically an attempt by a small group of black activists, most of them Communists, to provide Robeson with a base in Harlem and a means of reaching his public," you also struck
-- thereby leaving the quote without an opening quotation mark or any indication of where the "quoted" material comes from. (I put "quoted" here in scare quotes because, by striking the opening quote mark, you left it difficult to determine exactly what's being cited.)
For the above reasons, I am reverting your edit and putting this discussion on the article's Talk page. Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 16:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
(Addressed to the user
Larry Koenigsberg)
Hey thanks for all this, you clearly really care and put in the research into this. I was glaringly and obviously wrong on my edit, and it is right on you to revert it. Maybe my edit came across wrong, and but I have clearly walked into and edited a sentence that you care about and are much more qualified to have on the article. I edited it on a whim, and that was clearly wrong of me.
I deleted the text you put on my page because frankly, I don't like the way Wikipedia has messages between users, it's like painting someone's house 😂. I meant to get back to you sooner, but I've been quite busy the past week.
Lots of Love, Grant Handy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Handy ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this draft has been disambiguated. If this draft is accepted, a hatnote will need to be added to the primary page to refer to this page.
The primary page is Freedom (magazine).
I think that referring to the publication as "Robeson magazine" does not accurately describe it, on a couple of grounds.
In the scholarly articles that make up the references, Freedom is mentioned six times as a newspaper, once each as a monthly newspaper, journal, and paper. It is not mentioned as a magazine — except in this Wikipedia article revised title, to which the reviewer changed it. I observe that the Wikipedia article Freedom (newspaper), concerning "a London-based anarchist website and biannual journal... which was formerly a monthly newspaper" has no compunction about tying monthly and newspaper together, rather than describing it as a magazine.
I note that Wikipedia's Paul Robeson article describes Freedom as a periodical, and the Wikipedia article on its successor publication Freedomways describes that publication as a journal.
Also, I think that an exclusive association with Paul Robeson is too restrictive. He is listed last in the Editorial Board of the first issue, not listed at all with the Editorial Board in the second issue. The third issue does not have a staff listing at all, while Robeson listed as Editorial Board Chairman in all of the others that I've reviewed. He was not the editor; that was Louis E. Burnham. The publisher was Freedom Associates.
I understand the difficulty of creating an unambiguous name for the article. The Freedom (disambiguation) article lists two publications under Press:
So I suggest the following alternatives:
The above is slightly modified from an entry on the reviewer's Talk page. Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 17:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Further to this argument, WorldCat characterizes Freedom's genre/form as, among others, African American newspapers. [1] So it would appear that the best title for the article would be:
Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 01:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
(Addressed to Grant Handy and placed on his Talk page, where he removed it 6½ hours later.)
In your recent editing of the 1950–1955 periodical associated with Paul Robeson, Freedom, where you removed the following:
-- you wrote as your edit summary, "This 'characterization' has no source and seems just to be something an editor made up. The communism thing adds to my suspicion that this is just some random person taking a jab at these people." Contrary to your edit summary, there is a source, which you left in place in your edit. For your convenience, I footnote here the source of the quote that you struck: [1]
Apparently you did not bother to consult this source before making your edit, mischaracterizing what you struck as "just... something an editor made up," which it is not. I understand your indignation at what seems to appear to you as the tarring of a group of people with a label held to be demonic at the time, an indignation that I share for personal as well as philosophical reasons.
But many of these people were in fact members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and for good reason (see, for instance, Communist Party USA and African Americans). The paper's editor, Louis E. Burnham, had joined CPUSA in the 1930s and was an official after Freeedom closed. W. E. B. Du Bois attacked CPUSA in articles but later his wife, Shirley Graham Du Bois, joined CPUSA in the late 1940's; Du Bois himself joined CPUSA in 1960. Lorraine Hansberry joined CPUSA as a college student. Lloyd L. Brown was affiliated with CPUSA from the 1920's. Vicki Garvin joined CPUSA in 1947.
Finally, I note that in your haste to excise what you found offensive and mistakenly considered unsourced, you quoted a portion of the original material that you halved. Thus, what is left is the following:
So when you struck "Freedom paper was basically an attempt by a small group of black activists, most of them Communists, to provide Robeson with a base in Harlem and a means of reaching his public," you also struck
-- thereby leaving the quote without an opening quotation mark or any indication of where the "quoted" material comes from. (I put "quoted" here in scare quotes because, by striking the opening quote mark, you left it difficult to determine exactly what's being cited.)
For the above reasons, I am reverting your edit and putting this discussion on the article's Talk page. Larry Koenigsberg ( talk) 16:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
(Addressed to the user
Larry Koenigsberg)
Hey thanks for all this, you clearly really care and put in the research into this. I was glaringly and obviously wrong on my edit, and it is right on you to revert it. Maybe my edit came across wrong, and but I have clearly walked into and edited a sentence that you care about and are much more qualified to have on the article. I edited it on a whim, and that was clearly wrong of me.
I deleted the text you put on my page because frankly, I don't like the way Wikipedia has messages between users, it's like painting someone's house 😂. I meant to get back to you sooner, but I've been quite busy the past week.
Lots of Love, Grant Handy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant Handy ( talk • contribs) 00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References