Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Joke

The joke here doesn't make much sense? I don't know what the policy on translation is, but the one on the Japanese page is clearer (And arguably, funnier), as well as illustrating the fallacy of the argument. If someone could translate from the Russian, it would be ideal. 

   アメリカ人: 貴方たちは自由が無い。
   ロシア人: そして、貴方たちは黒人をリンチしている。
   アメリカ人: 貴方たちはパンがない。
   ロシア人: そして、貴方たちは黒人をリンチしている。
   アメリカ人: 我々は、貴方たちのフルシチョフを誘拐しよう。
   ロシア人: であれば、貴方たちもパンが無くなるだろう。 

   American: You aren't free.
   Russian: But you are lynching Negroes.
   American: You don't have any bread.
   Russian: But you are lynching Negroes.
   American: We are going to kidnap Khrushchev.
   Russian: If that's the case, you're not going to have any bread, either.

However, it would be far better to have a first-generation translation, rather than this one, which is from Russian to Japanese to English. 24.233.216.157 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a different, albeit related joke.

There are several forms of the joke on this page, and not all are equal in the making-sense department -- especially half a century later. My favourite version is this:

The Armenian Radio is asked: "What is the salary of a member of the Soviet Academy of Sciences?"

After several days, the Armenian Radio answers: But you, Americans, are lynching Negroes!"

ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

I think that this article needs images. I have place two. One which demonstartes east-west hostility and the other the soviet self-centered view. They are both relevant to the article. --evrik (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The article about the phrase, not about politics. By your logic I can add the whole Cold War here. `'Míkka>t 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't you then? --evrik (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Because this is not how wikipedia works: We don't put everything into everything. Wikipedia has a number of navigation tools to find interrelated information. `'Míkka>t 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If you don't like the images, find some that you do like, However these images are relevant. --evrik (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • They are no doubt relevant elsewhere in Wikipedia, but I don't think they have anything to do with the subject of this article, which is a very specific phrase (and the mode of reasoning which it parodies). --Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The image placed on there is an appropriate one. East-west conflict is used in the opening paragraph. We certainly aren't going to place an image of a lynching. --evrik (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) --evrik (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with the dissenters above. the images does not belong in this article. It really is too much of a stretch. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but those dissents where from January. --evrik (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And you, evrik, are lynching negroes!
Wait, why say we "certainly aren't going to" use a lynching image? Hypothetically (as I don't think it's been reached here), if WP:Consensus is that's the most relevant image, shouldn't that be used? -moritheilTalk 00:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Images redux

The image has been there for a while with little complaint. I say we take it to mediation. --evrik (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for mediation, there is a clear consensus against its inclusion. If it changes, i have no problem. As of now i see no change in the consensus from January? Do you? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The image has been up for a while. We're talking about the difference of opinion of one or two editors - one of which doesn't discuss the changes but just does what he wants. It's not like this is a heavily edited article. The image directly relates to text in the opening page. What else do you want, and image of a lynching? --evrik (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Some articles have no appropriate images. Please see my comment on your talk page about the validity of the argument "Nobody took it down so it must belong.". As this is not an valid argument in this case. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comments from January are just as valid as comments from any other time period – (see WP:CONSENSUS#Asking the other parent) – especially if an editor who commented then is still editing the page these days and still providing comments (either on the talk page or in edit summaries). It seems to me that the comments from January have not been refuted. Evrik, may I suggest that your first action be to explain, here on this talk page, very clearly and in detail, trying to convince others, the reasons why you think the image should be included and the reasons why you think the reasons given by other people are not good reasons. It seems to me that there is no consensus here but that there's a strong favouring of deleting the image; that Evrik is the only one wanting to include it and that not much reason has been given, only a statement that the image is appropriate, which is more like just a statement of opinion than a reason for that opinion, and which the other editors don't seem to agree with. The next logical step is for Evrik to explain the reasons in more detail, per WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus in practice, which says "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and discussion should continue in an effort to try to negotiate the most favorable compromise that is still practical."
      Please don't add the image unless there is consensus for adding it. I don't think any other dispute resolution is needed, but if you do want to, Evrik, I suggest you consider Requests for comment rather than mediation. You can put in a request for mediation but mediation happens only if all parties agree to do mediation. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Evrik, when you revert, please read the edit summaries of the edits you're reverting and respond to any issues raised there or on the talk page. Maybe you hadn't noticed this edit. The edit summary is "Your signature to the poster is false. Also it does not belong to top because it is not about the article subject". Note that it is claiming that the figure caption had been false. (By "signature" I think it means "caption".) After this edit, you restored the image with its original caption, apparently without any discussion of why you thought the caption was true. Please don't do things like that. Per WP:CONSENSUS, which is policy, you must discuss things with other editors. You need to explain why you think the caption is true, and convince other editors about it, or else not use that caption. See the Verifiability policy. It's better if people discuss things on the talk page, but if people provide information in edit summaries, that information should not be ignored. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Explanation why the caption is incorrect: The poster is intended to convince the Soviet folks that European working class protests against the expansion of the "militarist NATO bloc". In other words, it depicts conflict within the West of "progressive forces" with "imperialist aggression" (whether real or invented by Soviet propaganda is not an issue). I think I have to ad this explanation into the image file. Mukadderat (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Poster

The signature to the poster was false. Also it does not belong to top because it is not about the article subject, hence it cannot occupy the leading place. I will try to find a more suitable one where Soviet "friendship of peoples" counterposed to "imperialist exploitation of Africa" or something. Mukadderat (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be ok with a different image perhaps but currently, the image used is not referenced in any manner what so ever. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Google images" shows this one quite on topic, but unfortunately I cannot figure out its copyright status. Can someone figure out the year range from texts/pictures (like, car model)? If it is before 1954, it is PD, since it is work of soviet gov't agency, see {{PD-Russia}}. Mukadderat (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Mukadderat! That image looks on-topic to me. I don't know the copyright status either. May I suggest that someone who knows Russian (if that's what the language is) visit the website the image is on, i.e. http://www.davno.ru/posters/, and try to contact the webmaster and ask them about copyright status and/or year? See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the poster to the Japanese language version of the page. --evrik (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it

Weird. I never knew Soviet propaganda looked unusual. One question: why isn't there enough pictures? Joe9320-1000000 articles more to be edited, One dream. (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a fallacy, or a reference to fallacy?

It's not clear to me whether this is an article about a tu quoque argument used by communists, or whether this phrase is currently used in place of the phrase "tu quoque". In other words, while I understand that this was a fallacious argument used by communists, I do not understand if it is currently used as (a) a fallacious argument (as before) or (b) and shorthand for a type of fallacious argument. Amulekii (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states that it was used previously by the USSR. The implication is that it is not presently used, as the USSR no longer exists and the Cold War is generally thought to be over. -moritheilTalk 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
(b) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.121.199 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Article should not refer to lynching as "common" or "frequent"

Lynching is a shocking and repugnant crime but it was never "common" or "frequent" in the twentieth century. To quote Wikipedia on lynching, "Tuskeegee Institute records of lynchings between the years 1880 and 1951 show 3437 African-American victims, as well as 1293 white victims, nearly all of whom were registered Republicans. The largest single lynching incident in America's history was the murder of 280 African Americans in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873 known as The Colfax Massacre. The number of lynchings peaked at the end of the 19th century, but these kinds of murders continued into the twentieth century." betsythedevine (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But we're talking about Soviet propaganda here, so what do you expect, historical accuracy? :) Seriously though, this has bothered me too, as I was copy-editing and wikifying the article recently, but I didn't quite know how to handle that. (Eg, I mentioned that the mailing of postcards depicting lynchings was banned by the Postmaster General in 1908 -- which is way before the Bolsheviks came to power.) If you could further cleanup the article, and make it more historically accurate, it would be great. Turgidson (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How does "And in your [country] negroes are lynched" imply that's it's frequent? Why the reverence to the postcards? it's not about postcards. Aside from that, even though public lynchings were not frequent it wasn't something you would encounter anywhere outside of US. 84.167.217.68 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. When I made my comment and started this section back on December 30, this article referred to lynching as "common" and "frequent." Encouraged by Turgidson, also on December 30, I changed the article to remove those inaccurate claims. [1]. So, as you noticed, the article no longer says this. If you want to start a separate section to discuss the inclusion or removal of talk about postcards, that could be worth discussing. betsythedevine (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
At the moment virtually all discussion of the lynching question has been removed from the article - let's hope it stays that way. The whole point of this topic is that the assertion (about lynching in the US) is an irrelevant distraction from whatever accusation it was a response to - so our getting bogged down oursleves in the truth or otherwise of that assertion seems particularly inappropriate. The important subject of lynching is dealt with in a separate article; this article here need include no more than a link to it.--Kotniski (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This has got to be among the most uninformed and insensitive discussions ever to take place on Wikipedia. It is astounding that four individuals (above) can dismiss mass racial violence in the United States. In Russia and in Germany in mid-20th century, these events, when they took place in those countries, were called pogroms. Thank you for contributing your racial WP:POV to this context. At least it's out there in the open for all to see. The remaining question, however, is just how many black people would you like to see swinging from nooses surrounded by crowds of white people before allowing the use of the terms common or frequent to identify this historical practice in the United States?Skywriter (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, I think you're way out of line here.radek (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter has a point, though the language he/she uses above is pretty strong. The Russian use of lynching in America to justify any shortcoming on their part is absurd, but at the same time, readers ought to know that there really was some degree of lynching in America. The fact that there was is relevant. I've added to the Further Reading section in case some people come into this with no foreknowledge and want to read up on allegations of lynching in the US. Hopefully that produces a more balanced picture. -moritheilTalk 00:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
nearly 5000 lynching between 1880 and 1968, on average thats about 50+ lynchings a year = about one lynching a week; that does not seem to be uncommon does it 06:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.114.106 (talk)

Recent decimating of the article

  • (1) The sections in question set the context of the expression and hence they belong to the article.
  • (2) the origin of the phrase is known and referenced.

`'Míkka>t 20:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, up to a point, but I still don't see:
(a) what the quote about ballet has to do with the subject of this article (unless we are doing to rename the article Ironic Soviet catch-phrases). It isn't an example of Tu quoque.
(b) how the postcards are supposed to have affected Soviet/Russian mentality in such a way as to give this phrase context. (Were they circulated as propaganda or otherwise widely known in the Soviet Union? If so, this should be explained in the article; if not then they seem to be irrelevant.)
(c) whether the statement that "the claim was valid" is supposed to mean that lynching was still common at the time of the Krushchev era from which the phrase is sourced - either way this should be made clear in the article.--Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
(a) it is an example of irony towards a standard cliche about superiority of the Soviet Union. Since, as you correctly pointed out there is no article Ironic Soviet catch-phrases, this example is an available way to show that this irony was not an isolated accident. When someone, using reliable sources directly dealing with the subject in a scholarly way, writes such an article, it may be wikilinked from here instead.
(b) This piece was a screw-up of original text as a result the reference became invalid, so after some thought I do delete postcards (you are right; no evidence is presented that these postcards were used in Soviet Union as propaganda) and restored text close to intended.
(c) Lynching were not "common", but still took place; this is described in the "Lynching in the United States" (wikilinked in the discussed article). If someone wants to elaborate, whatever. `'Míkka>t 17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


An old movie film about USA

It's hilarious, yet true at some points http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kScEU_UACJs&eurl= Should it be included as ar reference? Agameofchess (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Vizbor song?

I thought that ""And in the area of ballet, we are ahead of the whole planet!"" was in a Vysotsky song?radek (talk)

Recent edits

Recent edits claim that "this article is not about lynching" (DESPITE ITS TITLE) and that links to books about lynching belong in the authors' biographies and not in an article with the word lynching in the title. Categories pertaining to African American history were also removed.

The framing of this article as a "joke" is itself a deeply racist WP:POV viewpoint. To censor resources that point to the racial basis for this "humor" insults the memory and the families of the thousands who were lynched in the United States. To stomp out edits that point out the racist nature of this article is itself a pathetic joke.

Why is Radio Free Europe not identified as an arm of US propaganda. As long as we're talking about Russian propaganda, why not US propaganda, or do you represent a viewpoint that does not recognize you represent that particular viewpoint?

Why is this article on Wikipedia at all?Skywriter (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I believe you are editing in good faith, so I will try against odds to explain this article to you once again. Firstly, I hope no one has said Radio Free Europe wasn't/isn't propaganda. Rather, the propagandist aspect of Radio Free Europe is touched upon in the Radio Free Europe article but it has little to do with this article. You ask why this article is on Wikipedia. The reason this article is on Wikipedia is because the use of the phrase "And you are lynching Negroes" in the context of Cold War propaganda has verified notability. You mention censorship and also indicate you think this encyclopedic article should not be included on Wikipedia. That would be censorship and Wikipedia is not censored. Humor/wordplay have been used for centuries to attack American racism from within and without. Think about Mark Twain, Richard Pryor, Dick Gregory, etc. "And you are lynching Negroes" is not a racist joke, it is an anti-racist quip that is traced to a semantic formula called the "Russian joke". IMPORTANT: You have four editors telling you as patiently as we can that you are missing the point. While the majority is not always correct, this should give you serious reason to consider your stance more carefully. --Boston (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to offer the above context to this article, then do so, and I will support it. There is nothing in this article, other than what I added, to remotely acknowledge that this racist joke, (lynching Negroes, har-dee har, har har) which some believe to be funny, I guess, because it is called a "joke" and that is the title of the article. That this is an ethnic joke is indisputable. That it is told at the expense of African Americans and our history is also indisputable. Before I began editing this article, the emphasis was, contemptuously, on "Russian propaganda" as if the accusation (And you are lynching Negroes is assumed to be NOT true. One person who reverted my edits demanded-- and I provided-- proof that Radio Free Europe is a propaganda agency (and now that has been reverted). Why??? Because someone has the WP:POV that lynching is a joke and RFE is not a propaganda agency? So there are many elements and viewpoints at play in this article. The existing article implies (and one editor insists that) Free Europe is not a propaganda agency yet the caption in the only art on the page identifies the art quite clearly as Soviet propaganda meaning it is quite possibly and probably is, false, as is the history of lynching.

So no, I will not sit down and shut up. I will continue to edit this article until it stops insulting African Americans and acknowledges the history that this article does not, in the way it is written.

Your comment your perception of the article "And you are lynching Negroes" and the discussion surrounding it could hardly be more incorrect. Hey Boston, I was not aware that anyone has been put in charge of political correctness here. Got a link to that news? If there is none, get used to the fact that there are diverse viewpoints (perceptions), some of which are different from yours. Skywriter (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is genuine disagreement here. Radeksz has reverted my edits several times without so much as an explanation, despite there being an open discussion on this talk page. This suggests the need for this article to be tagged as the ongoing dispute is not being resolved amicably, and certainly not to my satisfaction for the reasons stated in my previous comment. I am a longtime editor at Wikipedia and am offended by the way this article is currently written. If agreement can not be reached on its rewording, then I intend to tag it as a disputed article, bring in other editors, and get it cleaned up. Reverts without discussion are not the way to persuade me of your perception, your WP:POV.Skywriter (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Skywriter, first, this is not an ethnic joke, unless you consider "Soviet" to be an ethnicity. The joke is about the refusal of Soviet authorities to even consider any kind of criticism of Soviet reality by trying to change the subject. Second, neither the joke itself nor the article in anyway implies or tries to imply that lynchings did not happen or that racism in US was/is not a real phenomenon. Third, the article does not assert that this joke is funny or intelligent or anything else since that would indeed be POV. The article merely records - in an encyclopedic way - the fact that this was a common joke (which made fun of Soviet authority, NOT black people) in Soviet controlled/dominated areas.radek (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter, I sympathize with your efforts to add content to this article and I hope that sources will be found that will allow the article to be expanded within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I agree with Radeksz' explanation above. I suggest that you try to find sources containing the type of material you wish to add to the article and which also mention this particular phrase as described here. (see WP:SYNTH.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Radek, I slightly disagree with your comment above. I don't think this quip makes fun of Soviet authority as much as it effectively ridicules the United States during the civil rights era by noting that death by hanging is far more horrible than food shortages, etc. I have made some edits to the article which I hope appropriately connect this politically-motivated quip with the realities that prompted it, namely mass racial violence in the United States in general and lynching in the United States most specifically. That being said, I am repulsed by Skywriter's suggestion that anyone who disagrees with him/her about this article (and there are, I believe, 6 editors who how disagree with him/her) is a racist and I have noted so here. --Boston (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Boston misstates my arguments and makes false accusations, all personal attacks. My point is that this article is objectionable because its title, "a joke", ignores United States history and is therefore easily misunderstood. "The joke" that is the title of this article adopts the viewpoint and outlook of immigrants from Eastern Europe while poking fun at the history of the lynching of African American by White Americans in the United States. Everyone appreciates self-deprecating humor whereas humor that pokes fun at the experiences of other people often risks being offensive as does this one. To add the ballet or any other joke to this article does not further understanding. Rather it is an attempt to deflect from the fundamentally flawed article title. Would it be OK to include this information in an article with a neutral title? Absolutely. Is it OK to single out "Negroes" as the title of this insulting article does? No, it is not. And, while it is true, this article was nominated for deletion, it was concluded among the few people who voted in that "election" that it probably should be deleted unless it was expanded with references. The fact that it is an attack on Negro history without references in English is itself a telling matter. There's another point here that this article with the offensive title accomplishes, and that is, the United States government and its propaganda agencies (Voice of America, USIA) actively tried to suppress discussion of lynching because it embarrassed the US government, which went so far as to pull the passports of Americans who discussed lynching overseas, such as Paul Robeson and W.E.B. DuBois.
I would add that until I worked on this article, there were none of the clarifications and references to U.S. history that exist in the current version. Your personal attacks on me are unwarranted and self-serving. Skywriter (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Boston, well, first let me just say that I don't really have strong feelings about this. I happened on this article by chance, saw the attribution of the OTHER joke: "A similar ironic catch phrase is from a 1964 song by Soviet bard Yuri Vizbor:[5] "And in the area of ballet, we are ahead of the whole planet!"" (which has since been removed) - thought that was mis-attributed, asked the question on the talk page as to whether that shouldn't be Vysotsky and put the article on my watchlist in case somebody responded (which didn't happen). But alright - in reference to the article as it is now. I think it's fine to put in something about the historical context of lynchings in the US but I'm pretty sure your interpretation of the joke phrase is incorrect and the two sources you used to ref the statement "implicitly attests that mass racial violence in the United States against African Americans is worse that whatever criticisms might be made about life under communism" do not support that interpretation (I can read Russian but I'm slow at it so I'm not sure about the second source), leaving aside whether that claim might or might not be true (I mean, there was the Gulag etc.). The phrase is basically meant as a characterization of typical response of Soviet media to criticisms - with non sequiturs. The (now removed) comparison with the "Yes, but we're the best at ballet!" variant illustrates this as do older, original, versions of the article, for example here (randomly picked from the history) [2]. For example this statement I think puts the phrase into context (why was this removed?): The claim made sense in the 1960s when it originated, as there were in fact lynchings of African Americans going on in some U.S. Southern states, but with the subsequent success of the U.S. civil rights movement the claim became more and more hollow as the Cold War progressed. It can be considered a type of ad hominem counter-attack in that it avoids actually addressing the substance of the issue, but instead attempts to discredit the opponent and change the topic of the conversation.. Another thing which supports this interpretation is the inclusion of the propaganda poster, which I don't think anybody in SU took seriously. Some of the confusion here basically has to do with context and translation and, since I think this WAS mostly but not completely a Soviet Union joke/phrase I think it'd be good if somebody like mikka could comment on this.radek (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that quote would neatly address the accusations of downplaying lynching while giving clearer context to the article. I don't see any reason it shouldn't be reinstated. -moritheilTalk 00:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply. I'm getting a sense that the quip has functioned on at least two levels. One, it worked at least sometimes as a serious criticism of American culture as illustrated by the propaganda poster. Certainly the creators of that poster took it seriously and I intuit that at least some of its audience took it seriously as well. Two, (as you explained very well!) it parodies communist refusal to address domestic concerns and communist reliance on finger pointing. If we could appropriately (with citation) reintroduce the text you mention about how these counter attacks "became hollow" that would be excellent. I would be reluctant to include such without citation because isolated incidents of lynching did continue long after the civil rights era and we must do better than to imply otherwise. --Boston (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, apparently at one point the article was nominated for deletion, there was a discussion and the consensus was keep:[3]radek (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

  • The "ballet version" of this quip also would serve to illuminate the context if we could include it appropriately. Thanks again for your erudite comments. --Boston (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the article is so short

Because in wikipedia we can write something into an article only if it was discussed in published reliable source. I can write tons about meaning, variants, receptions, cultural impact, logical fallacies whiche make the joke play, etc., but unfortunately I am lazy to search for sources which discuss all this. If you look into article history, since its very original version people wanted to add some explanations, but all these were invariably deleted however smart merely because of WP:NOR rule. Therefore instead of grumbling please do some research in literature and expand the article following wikipedia policies about content. I could have gotten in a discussion with you, but I prefer to follow the rule that article talk pages are to discuss improvement of article content, not each other's opinions about the content. Yes, the article sucks. But the only wikipedia way to fix it is to find WP:RS which discuss the topic and bring them in. - 7-bubёn >t 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a fresh source, a 2008 book: [4] The google snippet shows a footnote with text "The accusation "u vas negrov linchuyut" ("and you are lynching Negroes") became a catchphrase epitomizing Soviet propaganda based on this principle". Can someone dig into a library? - 7-bubёn >t 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S.: There are plenty of google hits for the usage of the phrase in Russian language books, sometimes with a brief comment (e.g., "Сторонники вести дискуссию по известному принципу «А у вас негров линчуют» найдутся", "Не только в стиле фразы „А у вас негров линчуют", но и в виде попыток доказать,что никаких „прав человека" как проблемы в СССР не существует", "Известно, что главным аргументом в споре с американцами, когда аргументы отсутствовали, был такой: «а у вас негров линчуют", "Время от времени и раньше советские пропагандисты прибегали к тактике, выраженной в известном анекдоте: "а у вас негров линчуют". ", etc.), but I cannot find any reasonably scholar discussion of the phrase. Therefore it is safe to say that the current wikipedia article adequately reflects the level of research on this phrase. - 7-bubёn >t 23:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Does the Russian language wiki have any other sources we might add? (Sadly, I cannot read Russian.) -moritheilTalk 17:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Variants in different languages

A Slovene version is given, but I've never heard of this phrase before. I googled the Slovene version, and I only get wiki and a mirror. Bear in mind also that Yugoslavia was for most of its communist history at odds with the Soviet Union, so a simple transfer of a propaganda line seems less likely than in some of SU's satellite countries. While the sentiment no doubt existed (it still does today, to an extent - although not with lynchings, of course) I'm doubtful it was ever "officialy" phrased as is stated in the article. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Please understand this article before adding to it

Please will people stop adding irrelevant information to this article. It is not about lynching, it is about a type of logical non-sequitur. Even if lynching was still widespread at the time this phrase was used, it would still be a non-sequitur in the context in which it was used, this being the point. So whether or not lynching was widespread or African Americans were oppressed in other ways is not something that needs to be discussed at any length in this article (of course we can given links to other far more important articles where these issues are discussed).--Kotniski (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You obviously did not bother to read what you deleted. The wholesale revert focuses on the admission by the US DOJ that the Soviet Union was correct in its "joke" AND that the US Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court of the United States to change civil rights policy in light of the embarrassment underlying the truth of "jokes" like "And you are lynching Negroes

Now, we can invite other editors in to decide whether your revert is justified or we can go immediately to mediation. This is now open for discussion. In the meantime, I intend to revert because I believe you are wrong (and failed to read what you reverted). If you wish to tag the article as in dispute, have at it.Skywriter (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't understood. "And you are lynching negroes" is not the Soviet Union's joke, it's a joke (or comment) about Soviet logic - told against the Soviet Union. And it would work just as well regardless of whether the US did lynch negroes at the time (in fact slightly better if it did, IMO). So this political stuff which demonstrates that African Americans were/are badly treated - undoubtedly the case - certainly belongs on Wikipedia, but not in this article, to which itis quite irrelevant.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your personal WP:POV. This is an article about Cold War propaganda both from the US and then-USSR viewpoints. Your personal WP:POV assumes this article is a criticism of the then Soviet Union and allows for no possibility that the essential point made by the USSR was correct and that, as my addition to this article proves, the embarrassed US justice department conceded the point and argued before SCOTUS to overturn the underlying legal reasons for the embarrassment. In the four years I have been editing for this site, I have never engaged in any sort of mediation because there has never before been a need. This one I am willing to go to bat for because I know I am right. You are trying to erase a point of view of an eminent historian AND, in this case the viewpoint of the US government. Your argument is not persuasive and you ought not to have reverted factual, well-sourced material. Deleting viewpoints you disagree with is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.Skywriter (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's being deleted because we disagree with it (I certainly don't disagree with it); it simply does not belong in this article, which you will see from the title is about a specific phrase. As the article makes clear, this phrase was used in jokes about Soviet propaganda/logic (there's no evidence that the Soviet authorities ever did use it in the way suggested). The accuracy or otherwise of the phrase is not relevant - the "joke" was that it didn't address the issue that it was used in response to, not that it wasn't true. So of course we link from this article to articles about lynching and other relevant issues - no-one's trying to suppress information about these important topics - but this article is simply not the place to put this information.--Kotniski (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Factually incorrect. This is an article about Cold War propaganda. You have excluded directly relevant, well-sourced facts from two leading historians and you have excluded a viewpoint that differs from your own, that is, the viewpoint of the US justice department. One of three viewpoints you have erased is the admission by the US government that the enemy propaganda on this joke --And you are lynching Negroes was true. Read this talk page for the assumption by contributors, like yourself, that the "joke" was not true. It is the title of the article and now you take the position that the title of the article may not be discussed in terms with which you disagree? Skywriter (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And don't remove the disputed tag when there is an obvious dispute. Skywriter (talk) 10:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an obvious "dispute", but not of the sort you seek to imply with that tag. Please stop disrupting this article, as you seem to have been doing on and off for a very long time. There are other articles about Cold War propaganda - this isn't a dumping ground for anything vaguely related to that topic. None of what you tried to add has anything to do with the very specific phrase which is the subject of this article (it doesn't even mention lynching, as far as I can tell). Once again - I don't know how many times it is necessary to repeat it - "And you are lynching negroes" was not the enemy propaganda, it was a parody of it, and the parody had nothing to do with whether the assertion was true.--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate stepping into edit wars, but let me ask an honest question: is the article exclusively about the parody, or is it also about the Soviet assertion itself? If the former, then topicality becomes an issue, but if the latter, then it's worth addressing whether the assertion had basis. From what I can see here, Kotniski thinks it's only about the reaction to the Soviet assertion, but Skywriter thinks it's primarily about the original Soviet assertion. I have no wish to further the argument or take sides, but I think each of you may be coming at the article with a different article in mind. -moritheilTalk 04:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
What original Soviet assertion?--Kotniski (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The literal topic of the article - the assertion, "And you are lynching Negroes." -moritheilTalk 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is - look at Cargo Cult, which has an "Other use of the term" section. This enables the article to talk about the original cargo cult, and also the modern use of the term "cargo cult" to describe mentally similar things which are physically different. That could be one solution. -moritheilTalk 07:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your positions are in the talk page, please don't add any texts into the wikipedia article without supporting references, per wikipedia policies, especially since you are in a disagreement in interpretations, implying that the topic is not so evident as it seems. Mukadderat (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

With reference to Kotniski's question and comment From what I can see here, Kotniski thinks it's only about the reaction to the Soviet assertion, but Skywriter thinks it's primarily about the original Soviet assertion. Isn't it more than that--a conversation of sorts in the form of quips between propagandists on two sides of the Cold War? Kotniski's position is that this article is only permitted to discuss the quips in terms of Soviet propaganda and getting to the veracity of the underlying statements is not allowed. These quips would not have been uttered or popularized outside the context of the Cold War. To allow only insight only into one side and not the other defies logic. Skywriter (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "insight into one side and not the other". The phrase is connected only to one side. If this was an article about more general Cold War propaganda or disputes, it wouldn't carry the title it does. Why don't you write a more general article, appropriately titled, including the information you want to include - it might then prove useful to merge this article into that one, thus satisfying everyone (including those who don't think this article should exist).--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
While the article is unfortunately titled, no doubt about that, the title is one side of a conversation that has two parts:
"Is it true that your shops are empty?" and in three days the reply is given "And you are lynching negroes."
Those very words appear in the article. There are two parties to that conversation, the US and USSR propagandists. As I understand your deletions and reverts, you want to allow insight into only one side of that conversation. (And you want people who disagree with you -- or would add another viewpoint-- to go somewhere else and write another article and leave this one alone.)
This article was considered for deletion and it was concluded that unless it could be improved, the decision at that time not to delete could be revisited. The material you removed from the article, all deeply sourced, reflects a viewpoint suppressed. The material that has now been removed was an attempt to put this Cold War trading of quips into Cold War historical perspective. That you don't see it as Cold War propaganda from both sides, and not just one side, then perhaps it is makes sense now to bring in other editors for more opinions that this article indeed arose in the context of the Cold War. While this article takes the position, as written, that Soviet propaganda was false, the historical evidence that was deleted demonstrates the opposite-- that there was truth to the Soviet claim, and what's more, the US admitted it in court papers during the Cold War in the highest profile court case of the century.
The very title of this thread-- Please understand this article before adding to it-- suggests that this article is meaningful to some people but not to others, that it makes sense to some people and not to others.
The suppression of major viewpoints will not resolve the problem intrinsic to this article. Skywriter (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I keep saying - no-one's saying the Soviet propaganda was false. I don't think anyone disputes that lynching was once common in the U.S. The point is the irrelevance of the statement about lynching (to the context in which it was "used"), not its accuracy.--Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Kotniski - you are asserting that context has nothing to do with it? -moritheilTalk 11:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
No - but we have wikilinks to provide context (and I don't mind a sentence or two explaining the context in this article). But what Skywriter wants to add (in terms of both quantity and relevance - it doesn't even mention lynching) is way beyond anything that's needed to provide context here. Unless we turn the article upside-down, call it something like "Soviet views of lynching in the United States", and mention the "And you are lynching Negroes" quip in a section of that article. I'd have no objection to that, if someone wants to do it.--Kotniski (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
There are no Wikipedia rules limiting context or mandating that context appear on Wikilinks rather than an article as short as this one is, or even much longer ones for that matter. The insistence on limiting context inhibits reader understanding of what this article is about. The quoted line is perhaps familiar to some older readers from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union but it is not at all familiar to many others.
"Is it true that your shops are empty?" and in three days the reply is given "And you are lynching negroes" is shorthand for larger criticisms the United States and former Soviet Union had for one another during the Cold War. The insistence that editors are not permitted to tell readers of the Cold War origins of the summary quotes is an unjustified suppression of historical facts. The current article bias favors criticizing the former Soviet Union without considering the underlying reasons why the shorthand summary "Is it true that your shops are empty?" and in three days the reply is given "And you are lynching negroes" came into being in the first place. "Lynching" was certainly a code word for civil rights and "shops are empty" exposes an underlying criticism of the failure of an economic system that is not a free market.
That this section title is Please understand this article before adding to it is further proof that even experienced Wikipedia editors do not understand this article and, setting personal attacks on me aside, there is no consensus on the content. Skywriter (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Sigh - you're still reading way too much into this. Lynching is not a code word for anything (unless you have a source for that) - the phrase is just a well-known example of a response to criticism that fails to answer the criticism. It doesn't particularly matter what the criticism was; nor whether the responding statement was true or not.--Kotniski (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Kotniski request for citations: 'Lynching is not a code word for anything (unless you have a source for that)
Stopping lynching in the United States was a central focus of the civil rights movement. Numerous references support this statement, both in books and on the Web. Here are just a few.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/filmmore/fr.html
The lynching of Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney. There are many more. Skywriter (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
All of which has precisely what to do with the assertion that lynching (as used in Soviet propaganda or parodies thereof) was a code word for civil rights?--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Historical context is important. However, this article is not about lynching in the U.S. It is about a facet of the Soviet-U.S. Cold War propaganda exchange, and U.S. race relations are only relevant insofar as they directly play into that exchange. My current recommendation: Use something like Skywriter's addition, but make two significant changes. First, remove everything starting with "Here's an excerpt from the friend of the court (amicus curiae)", which has absolutely nothing to do with propaganda (and only secondarily to do with foreign relations in general), and focuses on historical facts a half-century before the Cold War even began. Second, change the title. Naming a section "Underlying truth", especially in an article about propaganda, is not maintaining an encyclopedic tone. Encyclopedias can assert truths, but calling something a "truth" or a "lie" sounds either aggressive or defensive. -Silence (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Silence said--However, this article is not about lynching in the U.S.
Reply. When the title of the article is And you are lynching Negroes there is an expectation by every reader that the subject is the lynching of African American people. To pretend otherwise is bait and switch. Based on your claim that this article is not about lynching in the U.S., the title of the article must change. Do you concur? Should other editors now be brought in for second opinions?
Skywriter (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit like saying that people expect the article on the Dead Kennedys to be about dead members of the Kennedy clan. Even if some occasionally do expect that, we don't rebuild the article to conform to their expectations (we just give brief context and onward links to articles about the real Kennedys).--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps another, watered down, version of the joke can illustrate how this phrase was used:

Radio America reports: It is raining in Moscow

Three days later Kremlin replies: And you are lynching Negroes!!! radek (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree to those two changes suggested by Silence. Your assessment that the Eisenhower administration's entry into the case focuses on historical facts a half-century before the Cold War even began is off the mark. It focused on what was current during the Ike administration and described it as a national security issue based on US embarrassment at stinging reminders that the benefits of democracy, even at the start of the Cold War, did not apply to the African American part of the population. Got a source for "It is raining in Moscow" or is that made up? Skywriter (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Explaing a joke to somebody who doesn't get it is difficult in normal circumstances. Trying to explain it to someone who is adamant about not understanding it is pretty much impossible. How about this, another version of the joke (which I just made up):
Radio America reports: Mooooo!
Three days later Kremlin replies: And you are lynching Negroes!!!
There's no need for sources here as it is simply an attempt to clarify what this article is actually about.radek (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Is the content of this article material for a personal blog or for an encyclopedia? It appears un-encyclopedic. Please make the case that it belongs in an encyclopedia. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It's well sourced and likely to be of interest to the human race from time to time - why should it not be in an encyclopedia? Indeed, what is the "factual accuracy is disputed" tag doing on it? Which facts are disputed?

Reverted "deleted original research" edit

It's stated in the interview with the Polish escapee (currently reference 1). [5]

And all the relatives were saying, "what are you doing? You're so stupid. Don't you know that they're lynching Negroes in America? What sort of a place do you think you're going to? You're going to starve. What do you think you're going to do in America?" There was all kinds of propaganda.

As such I don't think it counts as unverifiable original research. -moritheilTalk 00:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The deleted sentence about comparison of bads is not taken/summarized from the references given. No to say that you are citing a a primary source, which may serve only as an example (to corroborate some text), not as a basis for wikipedia text. Mukadderat (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not citing anything. This was previously cited. If you disagree with the citation please take it up with the editor who added it. I am merely working with the existing material. And this existing citation says the above text, which I quoted, which clearly indicates that it is worse in America ("What sort of a place do you think you're going to?"). This is not a matter subject to various interpretations; it is unambiguous. As such, as long as that citation is legitimate and remains in the article, the assertion should not be removed as "original research." -moritheilTalk 03:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
A have to agree with Mukadderat. The sentence in question is an interpretation of a primary source. The source is an interview, which (for the issue in quedtion) explains how her relatives tried to convince that America is bad. So what? Many people think America is really bad. An encyclopedic article may be based only on scholarly sources, not on random rants of common people. 192.18.43.225 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First reference does not support lead

The lead in this article claims that the sentence "And you are lynching Negroes" is a joke. The following is exactly from the reference.

http://parentseyes.arizona.edu/bloom/oralhistories/mila2.html

CZ Because that's the case in some of the interviews I've done. OK.

MVA Anyway, Mom was pushing, let's move to America, let's get out of here, let's make a better life for the kids, let's go to America. She was afraid what would happen to Sasha if he was drafted in the army. So they applied. They put in their application with the visa agency in 1977, I guess right when I was finishing up first grade. At that time, when you apply to emigrate, they call and let your employer know, they let everybody know, and everybody's treating you as this traitor, and Mom was fired pretty much right away. We had friends who were fired and waited for three years after that to leave.

CZ There's no welfare system, is there?

MVA No. The husband was fired and the wife kept working so they weren't starving. Now they're on welfare in the Sates, but that's another story. But we were lucky because we got our exit visas six months after applying and that was considered very quick. This was the end of the third wave of immigration. It was expensive - it was a thousand rubles per adult to get the exit visa, and Sasha just made it because in a month he would have turned 16, which was considered adult. Dad's uncle helped us out. I was living with my Grandma and when my parents applied, Grandma and I packed up and moved in with my parents. And I didn't go to second grade because at any moment we were supposed to leave and they notified the school so I wouldn't have gotten a good reception anyway. And all the relatives were saying, "what are you doing? You're so stupid. Don't you know that they're lynching Negroes in America? What sort of a place do you think you're going to? You're going to starve. What do you think you're going to do in America?" There was all kinds of propaganda. But Mom kept pushing for it. My Dad would have never had the gumption to leave if it weren't for her. And they told me, so that I don't blab, they told me they were going to Odessa. So I remember...

CZ That was smart.

MVA Yes, real smart, because I had a friend, a boy friend at Grandma's named Yura, and I remember writing him a postcard saying "we're going to Odessa forever. Farewell!" Seven years old, so dramatic. And Mom started teaching me English. She was home now from work and conducted school for me at home. And I remember asking, "they speak English in Odessa?"

The above is not a joke. It is part of the story of an emigrant describing what her family told her about leaving her homeland and the section on lynching was not told in jest but rather as a serious statement based on known facts about the United States at that time. Would someone explain how this is funny?

Or explain why the lead in this article should not be changed to reflect that it is not a joke, given that the source material does not support the phrase as humorous.

I would add that what is said in an article must be based on secondary sources and that the editors can not take what they want the source to mean and impose their own meaning and intent. This is a manipulation of a secondary source. Skywriter (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the reference given for the statement that it's a joke. That fact is shown by the other references, in the second paragraph (which is where the word "joke" appears).--Kotniski (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed broken link and unsourced material

I have removed the following after waiting eight months for WP:RS reliable sources to be added along with the broken link to the Bulgarian parliament.

Skywriter (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources for the (Serbo-)Croatian version, but I don't see the point other than "proving" that the phrase is or was used in this language too. GregorB (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense to add links to sources which explain the phrase (indicating that this phrase is commonly used in the particular language culture). This is done (albeit in passing), e.g., in the Polish-language ref. The Czhech-lang ref is much weaker in this respect, and I cannot verify the Hungarian one. So, what are the qualities of the S-C refs? Mukadderat (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I lived in Yugoslavia and never heard that phrase. Why should it be put on here? And besides this seems to be a typical example of "ad hominem" logical fallacies, why does it have an article for it's own? Also "crnac" isn't "negro" it's "black person". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.192.72 (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ "ТРИДЕСЕТ И СЕДМО НАРОДНО СЪБРАНИЕ СЕДЕМДЕСЕТ И ЧЕТВЪРТО ЗАСЕДАНИЕ" [THIRTY-SEVENTH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Seventy-fourth session]. parliament.bg (in Bulgarian). 1995-07-14. Retrieved 2001-05-10.

Suggesting to merge with Tu_quoque or Ad_hominem

Basicaly this is a variation of it. I don't get why it should get it's own article. It's not that significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.192.72 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't, at least not by what Wikipedia editors have agreed to what ad hominem is. The refutation by the Soviets is on topic (human rights policies by each party) and diminishes the initial accusation by noting that the US isn't much better. Ad hominems attack beliefs, character or traits, while this is an attack on policy following a previous attack on the same thing, to mark relative aspects. It's a use of the pot calling the kettle black idiom. It's a "logical fallacy" only if you expect it to negate the initial accusation. I fail to see how that was necessarily the intent of the Soviet response. This article is not NPOV because it's written according to the way the west interpreted the incident, clearly at odds with with the USSR perceived and intended. You could, in an article about this phrase, certainly note some political actors have used it to try to illustrate a fallacy or make an accusation of what they perceived as a fallacy, but that is just an aspect, not the whole matter.
This explains why above people have to explain here what the article "is supposed to be". That's because the article isn't addressing its object properly, and has an attached bias you have to hold to read it as intended. Who is like God? (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean about the West interpreting the incident? What incident? What did the USSR perceive or intend? This was, as far as I can see, an observation made about the USSR by its own subjects. The Soviet authorities never "really" said the words attributed to them in the joke/anecdote; and it wasn't Westerners telling the anecdote, nor was anyone in the West probably aware of it. So your arguments that the article is somehow biased towards a "Western perspective" make no sense.--Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The incident is the cold war propaganda dispute and by extension anything comparing Soviet practices and Western examples. By response, consider anyone defending Soviet policy with such a notion. As for intent, anyone interpreting the Soviet retort as justified to some degree would simply have one opposed to the idea it's fallacious. In respect to what the ironic use described in the second paragraph of the article, the phrase is used in certain contexts, especially with a Soviet or Soviet-related background, and essentially synthesizes something along these lines: "You do bad things" - "So do you" - "Ha, you Soviet/Commie!". Discrediting someone's accusation by pointing to some of the same, is not, in itself, a logical fallacy. Without more context, the sentence is more or less an attempt to invalidate the pot/kettle recourse by association with a disreputable antecedent or stereotype using it... amusingly enough, considering the above talk about ad hominem. The satirical phrase, as used nowadays (as opposed to any original censuring refutation by Soviets and pro-Soviets) has two intermingled semantic aspects: It refutes a discrediting response and ridicules Soviets. This usage is being used in the article, instead of being described as would an encyclopedia. Who is like God? (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Poster35.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Poster35.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Could this be used by analogy to refer to other contexts?

It seems a similar sort of tactic is broadly used by certain anti-American or generally anti-Western powers today in response to their own alleged human rights abuses, in the sense of drawing attention to modern forms of alleged abuses by Western powers. Could this be within the scope of the article?The lyniezian (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You do realize the joke was making fun of the Soviets, right?

Seems like a lot of editors read that joke and say "Good point, Soviet guy! "Pot calling the kettle black"!". Ehhh no, not so much. It has nothing to do with a "pot calling the kettle black" defense, because 90% of the time (including in the original joke) the Soviet guy wasn't being criticized for his human rights record, but for something production or standard-of-living oriented that the US clearly excelled at and the Soviets sucked at. Even if it WAS made as a counter to a human rights critique, that doesn't negate the validity of the original critique; i.e. - proving that I'm also a jerk doesn't make you NOT a jerk, but the Soviets genuinely seemed to think so.

It's a joke because it's a logical fallacy; if I say "You have mustard on your tie", and you say "Well, your wife is ugly", you just ducked responsibility for the original criticism by counter-attacking (something the Soviets have always been good at) with an utterly unrelated criticism. It's a form of deflection via irrelevant counter-attack, which is what makes it funny. Even if my wife is ugly, that doesn't diminish that you still have mustard on your tie, but you're acting like it somehow does. Two car dealers are having a debate: the fact that the Soviet Union made crappy cars and you had to wait a decade to get one is a legitimate criticism on that topic that is not diminished by the Soviet going off-topic and pointing out shitty US race relations. Both are true, but the counter-point is ridiculously irrelevant. And that's why it's funny when related to the Soviet Union, because it implies you have no reasonable defense against the original critique and thus must angrily counter with something you know you can win at. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone else points it out, have a look at this for some bedtime reading: WP:NOTFORUM. As for your point, as I understand it, the quip is asserting that the Americans (of which, from your tone, I assume you are one) were doing exactly what you accuse the Soviets of doing, i.e. accusing the other of being a hypocrite; the joke is just an extreme example. However, the point of the article is not to make judgments about the efficacy of the defence or the relative merits of US and Soviet systems...Brigade Piron (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been here a minute. I'm familiar with WP:NOTFORUM. I'm also familiar with WP:SOAP. The article as it stands is written from a pro-Soviet (or pro-Russian, depending on where you stand) WP:POV, which tries to deflect, minimize and subvert the original, organic meaning of the original Cold War-era joke, which is to poke fun at the Soviet tendency to deflect and subvert any criticism of their regime into a tu quoque argument, regardless of the criticism's original content (as stated by the sources). As the original joke points out, if an American asks you about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, you point out that his country lynches Negroes. If an American asks you about why it takes a decade to earn a car in Soviet Russia, you point out that his country lynches Negroes. Et cetera, et cetera. It's a classic example of the ad hominem and whataboutism logical fallacies, which is the whole point of the article! The wording that you reverted to and preserved adopts an unacceptable WP:POV by revising what was (in actuality) a joke that illustrated this concept into a witty, cuttingly insightful pro-Soviet/anti-American cultural criticism of American hypocrisy. That is absolutely not supported by the given references, and is a revisionist tendency that I believe falls under WP:SOAP. If you can find sources that attest to the contrary, please feel free to produce them. I intend to produce mine. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I've also added three new references to further support my edits, which I believe should stand. This not merely me; this is the mainstream perception among the available sources, as is clearly indicated. Also, please feel free to note when this page was approved via consensus as a WP:DYK on the front page in May 2004. Do you notice how it focuses on the humorously ad hominem Soviet anti-US response that's central to the joke, as opposed to the revisionist statement on social justice and hypocrisy your preferred version promulgates? Something to consider, anyway. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Translation of "негров" as "negroes"

I think the translation of the word "негров" as "negroes", while technically correct, is a bad choice. My understanding is that "negro" is used derogatory in the US. I think the Russian word doesn't carry this derogatory connotation with it and in fact is the politically correct way to address black people.

I think many English speakers fail to see the joke or do take offence of it, because of this translation. The Soviet car dealer doesn't want to offend the black people. On the contrary, it's in his interest to emphasize the fact that they are normal people lynched just because of their race. I feel that the current translation is confusing, because the reader wanders if the Soviet really criticizes these deeds or not. So I think a better translation would be to use a politically correct term in English, like "black people".

Please note, that I'm not fluent in either language, so I may have misunderstood something. Ivant (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

China's HR report see also

China's human rights report on the US doesn't belong to the "see also" section, because this article specifically deals with a Soviet phenomenon. China's report seems more like a standard case of diplomatic tit for tat, and at worst, a case of Tu quoque, the parent fallacy of AYALN. Furthermore, there aren't any reliable sources on either articles that actually links the Chinese report with the fallacy, and it seems that it was only added because China and the former Soviet Union were both "communist", which violates WP:OR and WP:SYN.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

...and because the US is involved. TBH, this is only the "see also" section and I think it's reasonable that since it is, in some ways, a parallel case. Personally I don't see the problem. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH warning about non-Russian phrases

All these phrases must be supplied with references which explicitly say that these phrases are related to the Soviet phrase. Otherwise they must be removed as WP:SYNTH: opinions that they originated in the Soviet phrase or somehow related to it must be footnoted. If one cannot find such references, they must be removed. If one feels that the article is "butchered", I suggest to think that may be the subject is not notable enough to have a separate article: no published discussion, no notablity .

If you think that the subject is notable, you are very welcome to write an article on the subject and publish it in peer-reviewed outlets, and then use it as a reference in wikipedia. People do it all the time, including some wikipedia scandals with bios of celebrities pissed off they cannot fix errors in their wikipedia bios. Altenmann >t 16:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's absurd. Besides the fact that there is public discussion, not only cited in the article but a simple series of Google searches of the Russian language version of the phrase(s) turn up significant results. Google Books Google Scholar Even in English Google Books shows discussion of the topic. There is the issue of translation which you are not considering. The Russian phrase has several versions depending on the level of rhetoric being used. The most intense is the one linked above, in modern discussion the rhetoric has been lessened by changing "lynching" to "hanging". this article by example, with the title "And you are hanging blacks" discusses various historical figures use of the concept. Wiki doesn't require absolute quotation. Some analysis is required, especially when dealing with translations. You are insistant on WP:SYNTH while ignoring WP:Common Sense. JMJimmy (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Material to be investigated

Self removed from article due to lack of information in English. "During World War II the German Nazis used the concept in a propaganda piece entitled "Our proposal" (German: "Unser Vorshlag") which included the text "United States should build a monument to blacks" Pictures History." This appears to be an example of the Nazi's using adopting the Russian concept, however, it's currently in an OR/common sense grey area. More information is needed.

File:General Lynch - Unser Vorshlag.jpg
Nazi propaganda featuring a version the tu quoque counter-argument

(citation only covers source of German->English translation) JMJimmy (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:NOR notice board

FYI Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#.Recent revert war -No.Altenmann >t 09:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD: do not revert changes without discussing the issues explained in edit summaries. In particluar, please answer how the deleted text was supplied with references that discuss the article subject, namely the Soviet phrase. Also please keep in mind that what you call "article butchering" is in fact making it mathcing wikipedia policies and practice: please review WP:SYNTH. -No.Altenmann >t 16:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

For those who are not well versed in WP:SYNTH policy, let me give a more detailed explanation.

  • The article is about a cathchprase from the Soviet times, not about history of lynching in America, which has a separate article and may be linked from here.
  • Over the time lynching was one of bright spots in criticism of America, and by probability theory you can readily find plenty of headings and titles with similar lettering. However bringing all them here to draw an analogy with the Soviet joke must be supplied with references which draw this analogy. Otherwise adding them here would be original research of WP:SYNTH type, even if (and especially if) you will add references about usages of these other phrases. WP:SYNTH policy forbids exactly this way of the construction of the articles. All conclusions drawn, comparisons made, etc., without references which make these conclusions or draw these parallels represent wikipedian's opinion only and are disallowed. -No.Altenmann >t 16:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I'm declining the request at WP:3O for a third opinion on this section, first because it has not been thoroughly discussed on this talk page, and secondly because it is being addressed at WP:NOR/N. You may find it helpful to refer to Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ. Kind regards, Stfg (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

3O Response to response: And I am declining your declination. I was asking for an opinion not from you personally. You answer is not helpful. -No.Altenmann >t 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My decline is on behalf of WP:3O, not on my own behalf. Per Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ#What makes a successful third opinion request?, we do not accept requests on issues where another active dispute resolution process is in progress, and per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Noticeboards, WP:NOR/N is a dispute resolution process. Trying to get opinions from more than one dispute resolution process constitutes WP:Forum shopping, and is unacceptable. --Stfg (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:And_you_are_lynching_Negroes/Archive_2&oldid=1092042532"