Talk:Emmett Till Antilynching Act

Recent edits

Hi Nogburt. I undid your recent edits such as <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emmett_Till_Antilynching_Act&diff=1075908580&oldid=1075902653> since they don't seem to be supported by reliable sources. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

See my comment below. The law simply does not outlaw lynching. I'm changing it back. If you have a source that says that this law actually does in fact outlaw "lynching" in the common sense of the term, let me know. Nogburt (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This article says "The Senate on Monday unanimously passed legislation that would make lynching a federal hate crime, in a historic first that comes after more than a century of failed efforts to pass such a measure." I've provided a citation for my claims. Do you have any citations for yours? Otherwise your comments give the impression you're engaging in original research. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The text of the bill and 18 USC 249 for starters. Also the definition of Lynching on most dictionaries including Wiktionary. The bill says what it says. It literally and demonstrably does not outlaw lynching. Are you aware of any source that has actually looked at the text of the bill? Nogburt (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I would add that I don't disagree that there are a bunch of news articles that claim that the law outlaws lynching. But the law does not in fact appear to actually outlaw lynching as that term is commonly used and defined. Citing to articles that do not correctly represent the statute present verifiable but not false and truth matters issues. The definitional issues with the law have also been well-reported, as for example in this article and this article. I don't know of any articles that actually say that the law outlaws lynching as that term is commonly understood. Nogburt (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Reading the links you provided, the first one says:

"And, throughout my engagement with my colleagues in the Senate to make lynching a federal crime, Marie Thompson has been an inspiration to me. [...] When Congress passes the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, the heinous act of lynching will finally be recognized as a federal hate crime. [...] Officially designating lynching a federal crime is a powerful statement."

The second one says:

"Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said Wednesday he is holding up popular bipartisan legislation to make lynching a federal crime, [...] The text of the House legislation outlines the violent and racist legacy of lynching in the United States and the many earlier, and unsuccessful, attempts to enact federal anti-lynching legislation into law."

You're welcome to provide reliable sources that support your position, but you've not done so yet. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We're obviously talking past each other on this. You keep talking about sources and I keep talking mostly about truth. Wikipedia requires both sources and truth for a statement to be made in Wikipedia's "voice" and presented in Wikipedia's voice as truth. Sources are necessary but not a sufficient requirement for a statement to be presented as truth. Again, I do not disagree with your statement that there are a bunch of sources (news articles) which describe the law as banning lynching. But you still have not explained how those articles are in fact stating what is true. The criteria for making a statement of fact in Wikipedia's "voice" is not that the statement is supported by most or even a majority of sources. The statement also has to be true.

In addition to the truth issue, there are also source issues. None of the news articles cited in this article appear to have done any sort of substantive analysis of the law. News articles also not automatically considered reliable sources on the law and they are not preferred sources on the law, as explained further in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law). None of the news articles cited actually indicate that they did any analysis of what the bill says. Rather, a lot of it appears to be Churnalism, basically repeating press releases about the bill.

Perhaps we can work on some sort of compromise language. I think it would be fine, even if not preferred in other contexts, to say something like "the law has been described by its proponents as outlawing lynching" or "the law has been described by multiple news organizations as outlawing lynching." Nogburt (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth is an essay that goes into greater detail about why what you're saying here is really the opposite of how Wikipedia generally operates. We very much do not want editors adjudicating what is true, particularly in fraught areas such as wars or religion or similar. We instead have aggressively pushed, as an encyclopedia, to impose verifiability standards, reporting what primary and secondary sources say. However, facts change or our understanding of facts change, so sometimes what was previously considered a reliable source such as an old book no longer becomes reliable.

I see your point, of course. Surely there's a law journal or similar that we can cite to back up your view that this act doesn't actually outlaw lynching? As it is, the bill is titled the "antilynching act", it inserts the word "lynching" explicitly into the United States Code, and many typically reliable sources (NPR, Washington Post, CNN) are describing the bill as making lynching a federal hate crime.

I'm fine with compromise language such as saying that news organizations have misreported the effects of the act, if we can point to more reliable sources saying this is the case. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing untrue about saying the bill "makes lynching a federal hate crime." The bill proscribes a group of people acting in tandem to kill someone because of a protected characteristic. That is how lynching is generally understood in the United States.

The fact that the conduct the bill targets is already illegal, and the fact that the bill also targets some conduct that might not be called lynching, could be mentioned if they're discussed in reliable sources. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version of the introduction that describes this as an "antilynching" bill, as well as reinserted the word "serious" to the description of which results of a hate crime trigger this act's penalties.

As of right now, all the reliable sources provided here describe this as a piece of "antilynching" legislation. I've been searching for about 2 hours now and cannot find a single source that says this is a mischaracterization of the bill's current form. What past sources that report some disagreement on whether or not the past version of this bill is an antilynching bill ([link], [link], [link]) base that disagreement on the protestations of a single U.S. senator who held up its passage in 2020. But those sources repeatedly characterize even the 2020 version as "antilynching" legislation.

I agree with MZMcBride about supporting compromise language that reflects reliable sources that discuss a misreporting or mischaracterization, and with Emufarmers about adding further clarification, if based on reliable sources, that some conduct not normally considered "lynching" is being categorized as such under this law. But as it stands, I have yet to find reliable sources for either of these.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A few issues here.

(1) There is no reliable source cited by this article which analyses the text of the statute and concludes that it does in fact ban lynching. News articles essentially repeating what the statute's authors claim are not reliable sources on the meaning of the law. None, zero. The only meaningful discussion of the meaning of the law in any sources is Sen. Paul's criticisms reported in news articles, such as this one about how it "cheapens the meaning" of "lynching" and would criminalize causing "a bruise or minor abrasion." There are zero reliable sources cited by this article that actually consider the substance of the statute and conclude that it bans lynching. Citing a large number of Churnalism articles do not change the fact that they are all Churnalism and do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources on the law per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law). A bunch of news articles does not make a fact, particularly on a technical subject, supported by reliable sources, as illustrated in Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources). The text of the statute itself is a source as are other statutes.

(1a) Inchoate offenses were already illegal under federal law as was causing death or serious bodily injury in connection with a hate crime. Conspiracy to commit a federal crime was also already illegal under 18 USC 371. Again, there are zero sources, zero, that I am aware of, and certainly none cited by this article, that says that this statute made anything illegal under federal law that was not already illegal. The statutes themselves are sources.

(2) Sources and truth are two separate and independent requirements. Truth is not subordinate or subject to sources. As noted above, there are actually sourcing issues with the statement that the law outlaws lynching. But in any event, there still has not been any meaningful discussion about how this law outlaws lynching as that term is commonly understood.

I'm going to make some compromise changes which I hope will be satisfactory. Nogburt (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians, all of us in this discussion included, are not the arbiter of "truth". We are dependent upon statements made in reliable sources. Not one single source provided in this discussion has at all disputed the antilynching label for this legislation. The only U.S. senator to which you Nogburt have repeatedly pointed doesn't even dispute the antilynching label. Even the most recent source linked in this discussion doesn't dispute the antilynching label, though it does report on the senator's past political statements from when he personally held up the previous version of this legislation. I'd argue plenty of the sources provided here have discussed the legal nuances of the law as well, but to be frank, they don't have to in order to be considered reliable sources on this subject. At this point, this seems to be more of a drop the stick situation than anything else. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians aren't summarizers or aggregators of press releases or news articles either. News articles repeating press releases are not reliable sources no matter how numerous they may be. Some of the cited sources have disputed the antilynching label, and none of them, zero, appear to have made any substantive analysis of what the law actually does or does not make illegal. Law is a technical subject. News articles are often not reliable sources on technical subjects. In lieu of continuing to make back and forth changes, I've added back the factual accuracy flag and a flag requesting review by another person with expertise in law. Nogburt (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of the cited sources have disputed the antilynching label. Feel free to point to any specific single one of the "some" sources that have disputed the label for the 2022 version of the bill awaiting signature (hint: they haven't been presented here). I alerted the WikiProject Law Talk page about this discussion as well. --Pinchme123 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve come here having seen the post at WikiProject Law. Nogburt appears to be engaged in WP:RGW by using WP:PRIMARY sources (the text of the Act and what Rand Paul says) to impose their own analysis. That’s WP:OR. While it’s true that newspapers can be questionable on technical issues such as law, we have universal agreement on what this Act is about from high quality sources such as WaPo. If Nogburt is right then they should be able to find a high quality sources that back up what they say. It speaks volumes that they haven’t been able to do that. The whole ‘this is about truth not sources’ business is just not how WP works. In their last post Nogburt ends by saying what’s needed is input from someone with expertise in law. No, well not in the way that Nogburt seems to think. Again, that’s not how WP works. What’s needed is sources. Nogburt, you need to put your effort to finding sources that support your interpretation not arguing about the text of the Act and saying all newspapers are wrong. DeCausa (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Status as of March 23, 2022

Hello. In case anyone's curious about the status of the bill, this transcript from March 18, 2022 says that they're waiting for VP Harris and POTUS to be back from travels to sign the bill and make it a law. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)