Jump to content

Talk:And you are lynching Negroes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sagecandor (talk | contribs) at 03:59, 5 July 2017 (→‎Comments about the removed original research: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeAnd you are lynching Negroes was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2007Articles for deletionKept
July 17, 2010WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
February 10, 2015WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
January 2, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
January 3, 2017Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
March 12, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know 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.?
Current status: Former good article nominee

Too much non-English

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]

Notability

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]

Request for Comment: Comments about the removed original research

Request for Comment closed by Winged Blades of Godric on 26 December 2016 with comment, "Procedural close....RFC is too vaguely worded.....". Sagecandor (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{rfc}} 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]
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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge suggestion

There is a clear consensus against a merge to Propaganda in the Soviet Union#Themes. Cunard (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think user:evrik is onto something here. At the same time I agree that, taken narrowly, the current article is WP:SYNTHESISish. IMO a proper solution is to put the article into a wider context. Currently it is about a single phrase, which is not much. However one may create a subsection in Propaganda in the Soviet Union#Themes. It has "Anti-Tsarist" "Anti-German" and "Anti-Polish" theme sections. Just the same, it may contain "Anti-American". IMO in this place nearly whole article will no longer be COATRACK. I say "nearly whole", because I still disagree with some statements, but this not critical. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was going to suggest {{mergeto}}, but found that the article is protected. If you think it is worth hassle, I may post an edit-protected request. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge -- The problem with a merge of this article is the same as with the proposed merge of "Three whom God should not have Created": any merge would be to a much more general (higher-level) article, and would likely result in the info from this article being blurred together with a bunch of other only loosely-related stuff. If the subject-matter of this article is a distinctive phenomenon which meets minimal standards of notability, then it needs to be discussed in a separate article, even if the article is necessarily rather narrowly specific. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - The shortcomings of this article have been pointed out continuously over the past DECADE. It seems unlikely that the problems are going to be resolved. If secondary sources existed, it seems likely they would have been found. We do not need an article about a catchphrase. There's not much to say about it. Even supporters of the article don't want to write about it; they want to write about the broader topic. Common sense tell us that we should merge this into a broader article and stop the endless war.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The strengths of the article have far outweighed any shortcomings. --evrik (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There's too much information here, and too many lenses of interpretation on the title phrase, to merge into the other article. This is better off being renamed to be about Soviet criticism of American racism. My preferences for this article are renaming/merging a sentence/deletion/keeping the article as it is now.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Five against the merge, no consensus for a merge. Plus there is too much material now to merge, all material directly pertains to this particular specific topic. Done. Improved the page: [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expanded the article

Expanded the article.

State before: [5]. State after: [6].

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]

Problems with sources

The sources have been greatly improved, but there remain problems with bias and circular sourcing.

  • As previously stated, The Diplomat clearly draws on this article. No one else connects Dmitry Moor's lithograph about the Scottsboro Boys with the catchphrase. In fact, there is very little connection.
  • "The Brute-Force Left" is an incoherent rant against the Left, which includes passages like: "The fun part for the Left is that, in Mount Holyoke as in Pyongyang, totalitarianism is magnified by madness, and thus The Vagina Monologues must be suppressed on the grounds that not all women have vaginas."
  • Daniel Greenfield talks about "Soviet days when the regime was importing African Communists to train as terrorists at their universities on a regular basis". He concludes that "The only people who believe this garbage also believe everything Max Blumenthal and Glenn Greenwald say".
  • Allison Quinn seems to have sourced her information from here. Her comment that "Racial discrimination in the West dominated Soviet propaganda and featured heavily in all forms of media, even comics and science fiction novels" seems to be based on original research in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst case of WP:SYNTH I have ever seen, but obviously it is futile to fight against the enthusiasts. It could have been dismantled line by line, but I better spend time writing something more useful for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) User is making unfounded assumptions and inferences based on their own original research. (2) User is quoting an irrelevant portion of the source not related to the subject of this article. (3) Again, quoted portion of source not relevant to subject of this article. (4) Again, user is making unfounded assumptions and inferences based on their own original research. Sagecandor (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:And_you_are_lynching_Negroes&oldid=789066101"