Talk:And you are lynching Negroes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the And you are lynching Negroes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 days

And you are lynching Negroes is currently a Language and literature good article nominee. Nominated by Sagecandor (talk) at 23:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that during the Cold War, Soviet leaders used "And you are lynching Negroes..." as an ad hominem attack against the U.S.?

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Logic Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Everything about this article is problematic.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are five paragraphs in this article. Why don't we look at them, one by one. --evrik ^(talk) 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was about the archiving. Why change the heading and change the meaning of what I said???--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the discussion on archiving ws ... archived. I thought your comment was held over and out of context. --evrik ^(talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language phrases, both in Cyrillic and Roman lettering, make this article unreadable from the beginning. If you really feel the Russian-language versions are instrumental in conveying the ideas here, please take it further down the article, preferably in its own paragraph. I however, do not feel they add anything more than confusion and visual chaos in an English-language Wikipedia page. It's not difficult to imagine any given phrase can be written in another language. 64.90.147.84 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed this, by trimming some, and adding more new content, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After such a long time of editing back and forth, so far there are not solid sources which analyze the phrase in detail beyond footnotes with basic explanation. Every language has an enormous number of catch phrases, cultural inside jokes and slogans. Since they are unknown and unclear to a foreigner, each and every one is explained to readers here and there. But encyclopedia articles must be written on topics which were a subject of reasonable research published in reliable sources.

It appears this article lacks significant coverage, and I am thoughtful of listing for deletion, since the article is oscillating between dicdef and original research for 12 years now. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking the same thing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is death by a thousand cuts, where you slice the article up so fine as to make it easy to dismantle the whole thing. --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. My slices are explained in edit summaries, which are listed it the talk page above, for ease of discussion. The slices are "so fine" for ease of discussion point by boint. Please contest them one by one. Please provide the proof of the notability of the subject according to wikipedia guidelines. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, you admit you're trying to dismantle the article, line by line? --evrik ^(talk) 21:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am dismantling the article by deleting pieces and explaining the deletion of every piece. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not answering further in this thread of the discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you failed to demonstrate subject notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are four separate discussions going on about this article. Nothing more is being accomplished in this one. --evrik ^(talk) 22:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pointless. If you want to dispute notability, take it to articles for deletion. Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know how to dispute notability. And you have to learn a bit about civility. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being quite civil, thank you. But a discussion about notability is not going to determine notability. Rather, that is what WP:AFD is for. Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "a discussion about notability is not going to determine notability." - what a weird statement. Discussions is the only way we establish notability in wikipedia. And no, AFD is not the only venue to establish notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but in polarized discussions as this one appears to be, there is unfortunately unlikely to be a concrete outcome as to notability one way or the other, and the best option to determine that would be WP:AFD. Sagecandor (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you are saying that a broader independent consensus is required, since participants stuck. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but also sometimes these sorts of discussions focus on the state of the article itself at present, rather than what the article could be in the future with its topic potential. Unfortunately sometimes the best way to assess notability is to directly improve the article with those sources, rather than discuss the sources. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [1]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed large swaths of original research which constitutes of WP:SYNTHESIS from disparate sources none of which speaks of the phrase. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 21:46, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,208 bytes) (-2,597)‎ . . (→‎History: rm original opinions about "earlier evidence of the concept") (undo)
• 1:45, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,805 bytes) (-1,444)‎ . . (→‎History: rm original explanation of the joke) (undo)
• 21:44, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,249 bytes) (-457)‎ . . (→‎top: rm original conclusion based on interview of an arbitrary emigrant) (undo)
• 21:42, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,706 bytes) (-1,860)‎ . . (→‎top: 100% WP:SYNTH in the lede) (undo)
• 21:41, December 4, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,566 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (original unreferenced opinion about association of the two terms) (undo)

Evrik (talk · contribs) essentially restored an old version criticized by several editors. Please do not restore the text without fixing serious violations of the WP:NOR policy. This user does this not the first time. If this done again, the involvement of admins will be requested. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you put in a time out over this article? I reverted the article back to the version that had consensus. You keep driving the chnages, and are now trying to get the whole thing deleted. I think you may be biased. --evrik ^(talk) 04:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attack other editors. Please discuss the article, not wikipedians. Yes, I am trying to delete pieces of wikipedia which IMO are against wikipedia rules about content. We do deletion all the time. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I sadly concur that content you removed has problems with WP:OR. Similarly, regarding [2], I can see the parallel, but since the sourced articles do not cite this saying, this is again OR. While we need a better coverage of modern Russian propaganda, this has to be done in a way that meets Wikipedia's policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article. It now has 23 citations. The citations may not quote he article, but they do substantiate the concepts. --evrik ^(talk) 04:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is very close to WP:SYNTHESIS... I think there are better places to discuss Russian propaganda, such as post-truth article, and so on. Stretching it into here is not what I think is best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a synthesis, and the article is a coatrack to criticise Russian propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a coatrack. The article actually has a logical progression. What you call synthesis and original research is merely an explanation of the history and context. I have listed this for others to come in and review this independently. --evrik ^(talk) 17:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your explanation of the history, based on synthesis of disparate cherry-picked sources. This explanation is not published anywhere. There have been many years to find solid sources. So far there are none. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do nothing by go against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view editing. This isn't a coatrack, nor is it a synthesis. --evrik ^(talk) 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article resoundingly survived a deletion debate that resulted in "Keep", at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And you are lynching Negroes. There are several good sources mentioned there. Also can try researching sources that specifically mention phrases: "And you are lynching Negroes" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and also "And you are hanging blacks" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). In the future, if the article sticks to only those sources that directly mention these phrases or close variants, that would make for a much better article that would be much more difficult to dispute. Sagecandor (talk) 04:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review was 10 years ago. The problem (or one of the problems) is that the catchphrase which is the apparent subject is used as a coatrack on which to hang various material about Soviet and Russian propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you call coatrack is really context and history. --evrik ^(talk) 14:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your cherry-picked interpretation of the context and history. There are no reliable sources which put the subject into any context and history. Your cherry-picking of historical facts is coatrack, because sources do not describe relation of the subject with facts you pick. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Perhaps you should list each paragraph you disagree with and we can go from there. --evrik ^(talk) 16:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already listed edit summaries for my edits. Please comment on them. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of WP:SECONDARY sources out there that directly discuss "And you are lynching Negroes" and/or "And you are hanging blacks" -- that if we were to limit the article to only those sources that use those exact phrases or close variants -- it will still be quite a lot of sources to draw from. Sagecandor (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such sources? Really? None? Not even one? Sagecandor (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could the creator specify the specific text and sources on which to comment/vote? If not, please cancel this RFC, it is too general. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a discussion on the paragraph in the history section would be a good start. --evrik ^(talk) 22:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a proper RfC per se, but my opinion would be to rename the article to something broader title such as Soviet criticism of racism in the United States, which would both be a topic that is notable (e.g. this entire academic book on the topic) and broad enough to support more than just references to this phrase or that phrase. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great article to have, but it would turn into a different topic entirely. Sagecandor (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that as it is a completely different article. --evrik ^(talk) 14:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant I Oppose it for this article, support it as a new separate article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't see how it would be a completely different article. Everything in this article could easily fit in under my proposed title (e.g. Soviet use of the term, cultural jokes, modern-day criticism, etc.). That would also solve the concerns that many of the sources aren't about this exact phrase, but just general Soviet attacks against racism in America. If this article is kept at this name, then yes, than most of it would have to be cut down to the bare minimum, and only mention the exact phrase or very close variants. I much prefer my proposal to rename.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but there are other sources out there we are not just considering this article and its current state but the topic. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately there are no other sources which cover the topic other than using the phrase. And the sources cited in the article are barely dicdef about phrase origin from a joke. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None ? Sagecandor (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I failed to find any. If you have more, please cite them. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And my opinion is that the topic is better suited under a better, broader name. The content currently here is inappropriate given its title. -- -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• this article is about the saying, "And you are lynching Negroes" --evrik ^(talk) 18:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Done. Improved the page: [3]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection to stop this constant warring. --evrik ^(talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, it was denied for now. --evrik ^(talk) 16:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pot call kettle black. The issue was discussed in talk page multiple times and may be found in talk archives. The deleted text was contested by multiple editors. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be the version that should be up there. It's not that different from the one two years ago. Any change you make from this one are the unproductive ones. --evrik ^(talk) 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Evrik. The slow edit-warring appears to go back several months. And this edit [4] appears to have both: removed 16 sources from the article and also tagged the top of the page at same time with {{notability}} and {{original research}}. To do both of those actions at the same time suggests not wanting the topic to exist. The topic clearly is notable. The subject clearly does exist. See for example:

1. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and also
2. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL).

Lots of good sources that show the topic is definitely notable. Sagecandor (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the specific sources which you think treat the subject significantly, per WP:GNG. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you start a new section and we'll tackle each paragraph on its own. --evrik ^(talk) 16:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sagecandor is not talking about paragraphs. His remark and my reply are about possible sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand the complaints here. I spot checked several sources for both reliable sources and verifiability to verify if they are directly related to this article. They all use the exact verbatim phrase, "And you are lynching Negroes". So it would seem they are relevant for inclusion in this article on this notable topic. Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference between using a phrase and have a significant discussion of the phrase; please see WP:GNG. Please list some of the sources you checked, so that I could explain this on a specific example. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can give us an example of one specific source currently in the article you want to remove, and maybe tell us specifically why? Sagecandor (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that the page protection continue past tomorrow, and received an answer --evrik ^(talk) 15:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please restore the OR hatnote:

{{original research|date=November 2016}}

accidentally removed during the revert war. The OR discussion is actually in full swing and more eyeballs would be beneficial. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, please instead suggest individual specific sources to remove or text to edit to be more in line with those sources. Sagecandor (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you have no say here. The tags cannot be removed until the issue is resolved. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have some say, I can express my opinion on the talk page as an editor. Sagecandor (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my limited understanding of English "you have no say" means "your opinion does not count". Of course you can say what you want. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I am certainly glad we are both able to express our views in this space without fear of persecution by the government for doing so ! :) Sagecandor (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information about Soviet art and literature in the History section is obviously original research. The sources do not link the art and literature to this catchphrase. The Scottsboro Boys case was a case of wrongful conviction, which is why the slogan is "Free the prisoners". It only has a tangential relationship to the topic. The same is true for the information about Ferguson. The sources do not connect the news story back to the catchphrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done per rough consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• Oppose, there is no consensus on whether there is OR. --evrik ^(talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the OR tag and revert the page to where it was when it was protected. --evrik ^(talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is the following not original research?

Earlier evidence of the concept in Soviet propaganda and phrases of some similarity can be found dating back to Viktor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch."[8]

The footnote is to the image.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: from a quick look at the discussion above, it seems there is consensus that some of the article is problematic — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under And you are lynching Negroes#Variants

Similar phrases are used in the languages of Eastern Europe, in different variants.

• Czech: A vy zase bijete černochy! ("And, in turn, you beat up blacks!") ^[1]
• Hungarian: Amerikában (pedig) verik a négereket ("And in America, they beat up Negroes")^[2]
• Polish: A u was Murzynów biją! ("And at your place, they beat up Negroes!")^[3]
• Romanian: Da, dar voi linșați negrii! ("Yes, but you are lynching Negroes!")^[4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talk • contribs)

• Support. Translations are useful. In the future, please indicate clearly what you wand to be added or deleted, for ease of verification. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed source and mention of 1929 postcard as both WP:PRIMARY source and does not specifically mention title of article or any variant of the phrase. [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added back, almost immediately, by Evrik, at [7]. Evrik, I'm trying to improve the page. But we have to remove primary sources before improvement can begin. This definitely violates WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in question under the history section is: Earlier evidence of the concept in Soviet propaganda and phrases of some similarity can be found dating back to Viktor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch. That is not original research. It is a factual statement that puts the article in context. --evrik ^(talk) 18:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it okay to use a 1929 postcard to backup the sentence: Earlier evidence of the concept in Soviet propaganda and phrases of some similarity can be found dating back to Viktor Deni's 1929 postcard image "Democracy of Mr. Lynch. [8] -- or does that violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:No original research ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly original research. It is the product of some editor's investigation of the motif of lynching in Soviet propaganda. WP:PRIMARY says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." What the article's sentence does is interpret the postcard in the context of the history of Soviet propaganda and relates that to the catchphrase. You can't get that from the postcard itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. If it's interesting, we can have it as an external link, but to have it in the article's body as the earliest example of this when no secondary source is provided to back that up is WP:OR. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. It is not OR. Images are just there to support article text (they are not intended to be stand-alone items), so it has to be acceptable for editors to search for appropriate images to insert into the article that support article text. As long as there is sourced article text mention of Soviet imagery from the 1920s and 1930s, to have this 1929 image as an example of such Soviet imagery seems acceptable to me. The arguable OR is to have this subject as a stand-alone article in order to allege a criticism deflection function was central to the image's or phrase's origin. I see no defensive origin here, it was attack. Pointing out injustices like lynching and racial intolerance was one of many arguments presented by the Soviet Union against capitalist America. The Soviet Union was the only substantial industrial economy unaffected by the Great Depression, so the position of ordinary workers in the 1930s Soviet Union would have been better than those in America or Europe, i.e., there was no need for the production of material to deflect criticism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment, unfortunately, is not backed up by site policies WP:PRIMARY, WP:No original research, and WP:SYNTH. Sagecandor (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not understand site policy regarding images. 99% of the images on Wikipedia would go if you were correct (since you are essentially saying that only images found in sources can be reproduced on Wikipedia).The same policies that apply to content apply to image captions, but the images themselves just have to be concerned with being on-topic, have a npov, not add undue weight, etc., as well as having the appropriate copyright status for inclusion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tiptoethrutheminefield:We are not talking about placing an image for show in an article. We are talking about using an image as the source itself for article text. Please see [9]. Sagecandor (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. In fact, that is a further point: I think using an image as a citation would always be original research. With regard to Tiptoe's other comments, I think the historical argument does have some basis. The catchphrase seems to come from the post-WW2 period, so it doesn't make much sense to refer to Soviet imagery from the 1920s and 30s.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was about placing in an actual image. Obviously the image itself can't be a source for text content - an image has no citable opinion or position. But the page giving details of it, like the artist, title, period created, could be a source. However, I agree the wording that had been used to accompany the mention of this image was not sourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1930 Bezbozhnik u Stanka image. Has anyone noticed it looks like it has been censored (across the chest of the Statue of Liberty)? I had a look for an uncensored version, but only found the original from which the Wikipedia image came from [10]. The page actually appears to have been cut into several pieces at some point, then reassembled but with a portion missing. So that portion of it had not actually been censored, though the page's damage could have been due to censorship. Note that part of the later added English gloss of the Russian text is also missing (suggesting the damage occurred in America). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's censorship, just damage.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's state-run television, such as Russia-24, frequently cites modern-day racism in the United States, killings of black Americans by police and resulting riots as examples of profound injustice and inequality in the Western society, as opposed to the society in Russia.^[1][2]

Removed sources New Republic and Washington Post as both do not mention title of article or any variants of the phrase: [11] and [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• They both mention race relations and Russia. --evrik ^(talk) 18:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it okay to use sources in this article that do not mention the title of the article, "And you are lynching Negroes", or any of the phrase's variants, or does that violate WP:SYNTH ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. --evrik ^(talk) 18:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. -- Do those 2 sources that were removed, discuss the title of this article? Do those sources themselves, not us Wikipedia editors but those sources, relate the title of this article back to how we then wish to use those sources in this article? How can they, when they don't even mention the title of this article? Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says in the first line (I paraphrase), "And you are lynching Negroes" [is an] anecdotal counter-argument catchphrases, which epitomize the tu quoque arguments used by the Soviet Union in response to allegations that it had violated human rights. The sentences you removed in the "Modern day argument" section draw a direct line from then to today. That's not synthesis, that is explanation and context. --evrik ^(talk) 18:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not draw that line. You, a Wikipedia editor, are drawing that line, yourself, by adding those sources. Those sources do not mention the phrase "And you are lynching Negroes", or any variant. This is textbook violation of WP:No original research and WP:SYNTH. Sagecandor (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The saying is a defense of the Soviet Union (Russia) by highlighting the racism of the US. The section in question says the same thing goes on today. That is not synthesis. It's also not OR, as that's what the articles say themselves. --evrik ^(talk) 18:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all your personal judgments. The 2 sources removed do not draw those conclusions. You do. How can they draw a line from the phrase, "And you are lynching Negroes", to the present, when they don't even mention the phrase at all ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but as you have asked for a chance to improve the article. I will wait to withhold judgement. --evrik ^(talk) 19:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a synthesis. I think it is a very large leap to go from Soviet propaganda to the current Russian media. Russia is no longer promoting itself as the model of an alternative society, nor broadcasting a radical critique of capitalist societies and America in particular. We would need strong evidence that there is a continuation in this propaganda, and secondly this would have to be tied back to the catchphrase.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like synthesis. It is an unsourced expansion of the subject from the period of the original imagery and phrase's usage into an era where both the usage of exact phrase and images, and the actual reality of "negroes being lynched", no longer exist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Need sort of connection made by secondary sources that mention the phrase. Sagecandor (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely synthesis to connect it to this specific phrase, which is what this article is ostensibly about. This could be used in a hypothetical "Modern Russian criticism" section of a Soviet criticism of racism in the United States, since the two are successor states, but it is synthesis and OR in an article about the phrase. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly there after, in 1932, Dmitri Moor produced "Freedom to the prisoners of Scottsboro!" ^[1][2][3][4] following the attempted lynching of the Scottsboro Boys of Alabama.

Removed the 1932 Dmitri Moor material for same reason, at edit: [13].

All the citations are links to picture prints, not actual text discussion of the term, and thus violation of WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The removed text was also cherry-picking sources, portraying the Scottsboro Boys case as an attempted lynching. While there was an attempted lynching early in the piece, the case was about the wrongful conviction of the "boys" and their imprisonment. Hence Moor's slogan, "Freedom to the prisoners..." Furthermore, the Communist Party of the USA was heavily involved in the case. It was a Communist cause. Moor was supporting that cause, rather than attempting to distract Soviet citizens from Soviet social problems. The connection being made in the text is not obvious.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheehan, Thomas. "tu quoque". Psuedoscience. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

Removed this source, and replaced it with a better one.

Rampages.us appears to be a user-edited resource and therefore nice to consult, but fails WP:Identifying reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this source is a copycat of several older wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the explanations of the joke is pure original research. The sources cited are about logical fallacy and do not discuss the joke at all. I can give 4 more reasons why the joke is funny, and with footnotes with the same relevance (i.e., tangential relevance) to the joke itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If it does not have the phrase in the article, original research. Sagecandor (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence should not be removed, because the author is not an expert neither in history nor folklore. In fact, his text is a piece of ignorance: "When the Scottsboro boys were sentenced to death in 1931...<...> Soon Americans who criticized the Soviet Union for its human rights violations were answered with the famous tu quoque argument:<...> " In fact the earliest attested use of the phrase in this way is 1962. And there are strong indications that this author, along with other random bloggers, picked his dubious wisdom from wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean should be removed? Yes, I agree that passage is clearly copied from this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source, The Diplomat. I see no evidence it was copied from Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it's quite possible instead that The Diplomat from 2015 used The Economist from 2008 as a reference. (“Over there they lynch Negroes”)—a phrase that, by the time of the Soviet collapse, had become a synecdoche for Soviet propaganda as a whole. Sagecandor (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The passage that Staszek quoted is clearly sourced from this article. It's too much of a coincidence. Based on a Google search, no other sources connect "Scottsboro", "Dmitry [or Dmitri] Moor", "tu quoque", and "lynching negroes" (except obvious mirror sites). As I have argued elsewhere, connecting these things is original research unique to this article. In fact, based on a Google search, Moor's Scottsboro poster appears to be very obscure, except for its elevation in this article. And, as Staszek has pointed out, the author has misread this article, assuming that the catchphrase originated in the 1930s. Also, he seems to think that "And you are lynching Negroes" is actual Soviet propaganda, whereas it is a parody of Soviet propaganda. The author has not done his own research, but has produced a garbed version of this article — a distorted mirror. The Diplomat is generally a reliable source. But, in this case, like many media outlets it has used Wikipedia as a source. And that's fine, if Wikipedia's right. In this case, the content is clearly original research by some Wikipedian. In any case, we can't use circular sourcing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree with your analysis. My research has shown it to be both a form of Soviet propaganda, which then later evolved into a joke such that the propaganda became a cliche. Sagecandor (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to what I said. We can't use circular sourcing.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source and I don't think it's circular. Sagecandor (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it does not appear to be the same text, and I read the source article which goes into a bit more depth and discussion. Sagecandor (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That passage (two sentences) is clearly sourced from this article. If you deny that, you'll deny anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content discussion and not individual contributors, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as a personal attack.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now cites two articles (or rather flippant rants) by Glavin, which are virtually identical, to support the claim: "By the 1940s the phrase was used by Soviets to avert critical arguments against Joseph Stalin and the malnourished status of citizens living in Ukraine." Glavin has obviously done little research, as shown by his claim that the USSR collapsed in 1989. In the 1940s Stalin was a US ally. Ukraine's famine was in the 1930s. In the 1940s Ukraine was under German occupation. Glavin just made that up.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, at [14]. Sagecandor (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article.

State before: [15]. State after: [16].

Now the article brings together a multitude of different sources from different types including scholarly academic journals, books, and other print media. Sagecandor (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]