Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Problematic topic

What is this article about? An Eastern European joke? Soviet propaganda? Political terminology? A logical fallacy? It seems to fail Wikipedia's standards on coherence, notability, original research, and neutrality.

Let's look at the sources: 1. Lucas: mentions discrimination against blacks, but doesn't seem to mention lynching. 2. Interview: mentions a similar phrase as propaganda. 3. Economist: mentions a similar phrase as a joke. 4. Russian: I couldn't find the Russian phrase in this, but maybe I missed it. 5. Artwork depicting lynching. 6. Artwork about the Scottsboro Boys, which was not a case of lynching. 7. Reference to this artwork. 8. Reference to the two artworks. 9. Another reference. 10. A Russian poem that uses a similar phrase. 11. SideWise: a blog from 2011 which uses the phrase (probably referring to this page). 12. A Russian version of the joke. 13. Logical fallacies: appears to be about the fallacy, not the phrase. 14. Swedish lecture slides that use the phrase. 15-18 Uses of the phrase in other languages... A online search brings up blogs etc that seem to be essentially mirror sites of this one.

Yes, it appears true there is a joke along these lines. It is clear that Soviet propaganda did refer to lynching. It appears that people have cited the joke (or the propaganda) in discussions of politics or logic. But I don't think the article hangs together.

And, by the way, the archiving of this page seems hyperactive. Can we stop the bot?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I adjusted the archiving.--evrik (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems clear to me that the article is about a manifestation of Soviet propaganda used defensively against the US during the Cold War. It belongs also to the genre of political slogans, many of which have their own Wikipedia articles. I find it coherent and notable. FactStraight (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
But the title and much of the text relate to a joke, not propaganda or a slogan. The phrase also does seem to be a neologism, even though the tag has been removed without discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not a slogan; it is a catchphrase. BTW, Why do you think it is a neologism? it is ove 50 years old in several languages. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, please help to keep original research off this page. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The Russian joke might be 50 years old. The catchphrase in English seems to have been created by this article. I agree with you that the text you have removed is essentially a synthesis. But the text that is there is not much better. For example, the subject of the interview was only 7 years old when the lynching conversation took place. How is this reliable or notable??? Another point that I didn't make before is that the article suggests that the issue is somehow concocted. I don't think the Black Lives Matter movement would agree. I don't think the Communist support for the Scottsboro Boys was hypocritical. After all, the CPUSA paid for their legal defence. In fact, the joke itself could be interpreted as racist, rather than a logical riposte. Maybe the article should be rewritten along those lines(!).--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The joke is a Soviet reality, even if it is a neologism (I don't know) in English. We have articles about things unknown in Anglophone culture, such as Chinese profanity, Three men make a tiger or hokkani boro :-). As for rewriting, I keeping my eye on it and there simply no sources to write anything else that's already written. But I can assure you it was a popular say among Soviet people fed up by everyday propaganda how life is so bad in the West and so good in the USSR. And there are more phrases of this kind, such as, "Sure, and we are the world leaders in ballet!" So may be Soviet anti-West propaganda could be a developable non-OR subject. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, we have an article called Russian political jokes (as you know), and this could go there. Or we could have an article about Soviet propaganda against America. I don't know what articles we currently have in that field, but it would certainly be worthwhile. But we can't have an article that could be one or the other. This is incoherent. What we have is various patches of information that have been cobbled together.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Revert war

Before removing any more content, I think changes should be proposed here. --evrik (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the description of my changes, from edit summaries:

  • (cur | prev) 00:32, January 21, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,353 bytes) (-974)‎ . . (rm unreferenced essay) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 00:31, January 21, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,327 bytes) (-1,254)‎ . . (→‎History: rm dubious original "explanation") (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 00:30, January 21, 2016‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,581 bytes) (-1,620)‎ . . (→‎History: rm original historical research) (undo)

Please prove that I am wrong. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You are now engaged in Wikipedia:Edit warring. Additionally, your edits on the commons, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik u stanka US 1930.jpg show that you are now escalating this discussion into something more serious. Please be civil and keep your discussion to this page. Thank you. --evrik (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Please don't restore unreferenced text and don't troll in my user page. It is your burden to prove that your text is not original research. I can delete it at any time. You have serious problems with wikipedia policies WP:CITE and WP:NOR. If you don't support your edits with references that discuss the "and your are lynching" phrase , then indeed I will escalate this to something more serious. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the text that was removed is a synthesis of original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Evrik, WP:V says Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. That's why I removed the unsourced text just as Altenmann did. Please don't restore it until we have a citation for it. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Even the lead should have citations for statements likely to be challenged (see WP:LEADCITE). clpo13(talk) 23:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I disagree. There is a citation. If you have a problem with the paragraph, go back and tag each sentence you have a problem with. I just reported Altenmann for violating 3 RR. --evrik (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • We're talking about this paragraph, right?
The Soviet media frequently covered stories of racial discrimination in the west, as well as reporting on the impacts of unemployment and financial crises, which were seen as inherent problems of the capitalist system that had been erased by the strict egalitarianism of the Communist system. The history of lynchings of African Americans was thus seen as an embarrassing skeleton in the closet for the US which the Soviets frequently used as a stock form of defensive rhetorical ammunition whenever they were reproached for the various failings of the Soviet system, such as their inferior industrial and agricultural production, their human rights abuses and the relatively low standard of living for their workers.
There's no citation in that entire paragraph. clpo13(talk) 23:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I added the [citation needed] tag. I'll go find some sources. --evrik (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:And_you_are_lynching_Negroes/Archive_4&oldid=927380657"